State v. DixonState v. Dixon
Krystal M. Dixon, 2626 Tobermory Court, Cincinnati, Ohio 45231, appellant, pro se
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-аppellant, Krystal M. Dixon, appeals from her convictions in the Fairfield Municipal Court for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. For the reasons outlined belоw, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On June 9, 2015, a complaint was filed in the Fairfield Municipal Court charging Dixon with resisting arrest in violation of Fairfield Municipal Code Section 525.09(a), a second-degree misdemeanor, and disorderly conduct in violation of Fairfield Municipal Code
{¶ 3} On July 8, 2015, Dixon filed a motion to suppress arguing that her arrest was unlawful and requested the state to demonstrate why the charges against her should not be dismissed. Dixon later filed a supplemental motion tо suppress and a motion to dismiss, wherein she alleged the “arresting officer had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe [she] had committed any offense.”
{¶ 4} On February 11, 2016, after holding a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied both Dixon‘s motion to suppress and her motion to dismiss. In so holding, the trial court determined that after “carefully consider[ing] the evidence presented including the video (State‘s Exhibit 1) and the applicable authority” that “[t]he City of Fаirfield ha[d] established both reasonable suspicion and probable cause for the arrest of [Dixon] and hereby denies [Dixon‘s] request to dismiss the charges.” It is undisputed that the state‘s Exhibit 1 is a surveillance video taken from the Fairfield Aquatic Center that captured the altercation.
{¶ 5} On February 25, 2016, Dixon entered into a pleа agreement wherein she pled guilty to disorderly conduct and no contest to resisting arrest.1 After accepting Dixon‘s plea, the trial court sentenced Dixon on the disorderly conduct charge to serve 60 days in jail, 30 of which were suspended, with the other 30 days ordered to be completed on electrically mоnitored house arrest. The trial court also ordered Dixon to serve two years on probation, pay a fine of $475 plus court costs, and attend anger management classes. In addition, as it relates to the resisting arrest charge, the trial court sentenced Dixon to serve 90 days in jail,
{¶ 6} Dixon now appeals from her convictions, raising five assignments of error for review.2 For ease оf discussion, Dixon‘s assignments of error will be addressed together.
{¶ 7} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 8} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT‘S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
{¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 10} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT‘S MOTION TO DISMISS.
{¶ 11} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 12} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT‘S [SUPPLEMENTAL] MOTION TO SUPPRESS/DISMISS.
{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 4:
{¶ 14} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT‘S MOTION TO SUPPRESS, BY NOT FOLLOWING HER OWN ORDER.
{¶ 15} Assignment of Error No. 5:
{¶ 16} COURT ERRED BY HER STATEMENTS TO THE DEFENDANT UPON CONVICTING KRYSTAL M. DIXON.
{¶ 17} In her five assignments of error, Dixon argues the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress and motion to dismiss. Dixon also argues that her convictions must be reversed because the trial court engaged in judicial misconduct by exhibiting a bias and prejudice against her. Aсcording to Dixon, due to these errors, this court must reverse the
{¶ 18} Dixon did not provide this court with a transcript of any of the various proceedings before the trial court, including the hearing on her motion to suppress and motion to dismiss. It is well-established that “[t]he duty to provide a transcript for appellate review falls upon the appealing party since he or she bears the burden of showing error by referencе to matters in the record.” State v. Williams, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-08-060, 2013-Ohio-1387, ¶ 18. As a result, “[w]hen portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, we have nothing to pass upon and have no choice but to presume the regularity of the lower court‘s proceeding and affirm.” State v. Gregory, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2006-05-016, 2006-Ohio-7037, ¶ 3. Therefore, because Dixоn did not provide this court with a transcript, we must presume the regularity and validity of the trial court‘s decision to deny both Dixon‘s motion to suppress and motion to dismiss. Although Dixon claims otherwise, this includes the trial court‘s assertion that it had “carefully considered the evidence presented including the video (State‘s Exhibit 1) and the applicable authority.”
{¶ 19} Dixon nevertheless claims the trial court engaged in a “bait and switch” with the state by only accepting the state‘s video evidence, Exhibit 1, a survеillance video taken from the Fairfield Aquatic Center, when she also presented the trial court with a video of the incident taken from a cellphone camera. According to Dixon, the video taken from the cellphone camera proves she “broke no law.” However, without a transcript of the proceedings, we are unable to review the validity of Dixon‘s claim. In addition, although
{¶ 20} Finally, as it relates to Dixon‘s claim that the trial court engaged in judicial misconduct by exhibiting a bias аnd prejudice against her, we again note that Dixon did not provide this court with a transcript of any of the various proceedings before the trial court, thereby limiting our ability to review Dixon‘s claims. Moreover, even if this court was provided with a transcript, in order to disqualify a municipal court judge, a party must comply with procedures set forth in
{¶ 21} In light of the foregoing, and based on the record properly befоre this court, we find no merit to any of Dixon‘s five assignments of error and overrule the same.4 In reaching this decision, we note that “the right of self-representation is not a license for failure to
{¶ 22} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.