"No person shall violate sections
{¶ 3} Appellant pled not guilty, and the matter was set for a hearing in the Barberton Municipal Court on January 21, 2003 at 2:30 P.M. On January 9, 2003, Appellant filed a demand for a jury trial, specifically stating that he did not waive his speedy trial rights. The court denied the demand because R.C.
{¶ 4} In response to Appellant's motions, the trial court agreed to hear the motions and continued the case so the prosecution could have time to prepare for the hearing. The motion hearing was scheduled for and held before Barberton Municipal Judge Weigand on March 3, 2003; Appellant did not appear and the trial court denied the motions. The court also set a new trial date for March 19th, 2003. On March 12, 2003, Appellant filed a new affidavit alleging bias toward him on the part of Judge Weigand This filing resulted in a stay of the case pending authorization to proceed from the Presiding Judge of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. Ultimately, a new trial date of May 23, 2004 was scheduled before Judge Weigand On that date, the trial court granted Appellant a further continuance after granting the prosecution's motion to amend the complaint. The trial court rescheduled the trial for September 25, 2003.
{¶ 5} The trial proceeded on that date and a transcript of the proceeding is included in the record. The transcript demonstrates that the first witness called was a city health inspector for the cities of Barberton and Norton. He testified that on August 19, 2002, he performed an inspection on Appellant's property located at 3720 Alberta Drive in Norton, Ohio. The inspector described the property as "severely in disarray * * * the residential structure was fairly dilapidated, roof caving in. * * * There was also a preponderance of trash and debris, solid waste around the entire premises, consisting of numerous materials. It was solid waste." According to the inspector's testimony, the waste consisted of two unlicensed junk vehicles, lumber, trash, old spouting, broken lawn chairs, lawn and tractor mowers, old plastic, dozens of gallon plastic containers strewn around, boxes of debris, a garage filled with refuse and junk, and old roofing shingles. As a result, the witness issued an order to Appellant to clean up his property within fourteen days. The order further indicated that failure to comply would result in the matter being referred for prosecution and "[a]ppeal procedures are attached." The appeal procedures directed Appellant to request a hearing before the health commission in writing within ten calendar days. Appellant did not appeal that order. The witness stated that he returned to the property on numerous occasions and found no change in the condition of the property.
{¶ 6} On cross-examination, Appellant, acting pro se, proceeded to direct questions to the witness which the trial court disallowed as they pertained to Appellant's motion to suppress which was not granted at the March 3, 2003 hearing. Appellant then asked the court to strike all of that witness's testimony and dismiss the case on the grounds that the prosecution did not prove "that I am responsible for the condition of the property." The trial court questioned Appellant about who lived there and for how long, and then denied the motion to dismiss. Appellant then proceeded to ask questions of the witness to which the prosecution entered an objection on the basis of res judicata, claiming that Appellant did not appeal the order to clean up his property and was precluded from his line of questioning. The trial court sustained the objection.
{¶ 7} A second witness, an environmental sanitarian for the City of Barberton, testified that he had visited Appellant's property; at that point, Appellant requested the court's permission to leave the trial alleging that he was not permitted to present evidence. The trial court asked that the record reflect that Appellant was voluntarily leaving the trial. Appellant also told the trial court that he would not file a post-trial brief.
{¶ 8} On October 14, 2003, the trial court journalized a judgment entry wherein Appellant was found guilty of violating R.C.
{¶ 9} This appeal followed. Appellant raises ten assignments of error. We list and reiterate Appellant's arguments for all assignments of error and then address them together at the conclusion of the list.
{¶ 10} In this assignment of error, Appellant claims a violation of the speedy trial statutes, cites to authority stating that speedy trial statutes are to be strictly construed against the state and that an appellate court counts days to determine if the case was tried within time limits. Appellant points to no references in the record to support this assignment of error, nor does he explain how the citations apply to his case.
{¶ 11} In this second assignment of error, Appellant claims that his property was inspected eight times without a warrant in violation of his constitutional rights. Again, there is no citation to any part of the record in support of this argument nor does Appellant explain how the constitutional standards apply to this case.
{¶ 12} Appellant's argument under this assignment of error consists of a one sentence assertion: "Appellant has five documents in this case bearing Judge Wiegand's name that on information and belief are not the judge's signature that are being checked by a hand writing expert that will be in the supplemental record."
{¶ 13} Again, Appellant argues in one sentence, "Appellant respectfully refers this court to pages of the court reporter's record in Vol. III of the transcript."
{¶ 14} In the fifth assignment of error, Appellant challenges the municipal court's jurisdiction because R.C.
{¶ 15} Appellant does not address error as explained in the assignment of error; instead, Appellant complains here that he cannot prepare a record for this appeal because the court will not provide Appellant with a tape recording of the proceedings.1
{¶ 16} Here, Appellant argues that he did not believe or know that he had to obey a statute that he was unable to locate in either Baldwin's or Anderson's published copies of the Ohio Revised Code. Appellant states that the Revised Code goes from R.C.
{¶ 17} For this assignment of error, Appellant again contains his argument in one sentence: "This assignment of error should be sustained based upon State v. Miller, City of Oregon v. Kohne,See and Szymkowiak, supra and pages 3 and 4 of Volume II of the court reporter's record[.]"
{¶ 18} Appellant makes yet another one sentence argument: "The court could not apply the Noernburg case that is a civil service case as controlling law in this instant criminal case as it is set out in the court's October 14th judgment entry."
{¶ 19} Last, Appellant argues that this assignment of error "is self-explanatory and must be sustained. See Ohio Constitution, Art.
{¶ 20} In conclusion of all assignments of error, Appellant states, "By reason of all the foregoing, Appellant respectfully seeks a reversal[.]"
{¶ 21} We now address all assignments of error together. "An appellant's brief is required to contain a statement of facts relevant to the assignments of error `with appropriate references to the record' as well as a section devoted to argument and law, `with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.'" Ivery v. Ivery (Jan. 12, 2000), 9th Dist. No 19410, at 2; App.R. 16(A)(6) and (7).
{¶ 22} As the appellant, Mr. Cochran had the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal. Frecska v. Frecska
(Oct. 1, 1997), 9th Dist. No. 96CA0086, at 5; Angle v. WesternReserve Mut. Ins. Co. (Sept. 16, 1998), 9th Dist. No. 2729-M, at 2. It is not the duty of this Court to search the record for evidence to support an appellant's argument of an alleged error.State v. Watson (1998),
{¶ 23} Pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(2), this Court "`may disregard an assignment of error presented for review if the party raising it fails to identify in the record the error on which the assignment of error is based or fails to argue the assignment separately in the brief as required under App.R. 16(A).'" Accordingly, this Court has no choice but to affirm the order of the trial court. Angle v. Western Reserve Mut. Ins.Co. (Sept. 16, 1998), 9th Dist. No. 2729-M, at 2. Appellant's assignments of error are overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Barberton Municipal Court, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
Exceptions.
Whitmore, P.J., Slaby, J., concur.