State v. DixonState v. Dixon
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Krystal M. Dixon, appeals from her convictions in the Fairfield Municipal Court for resisting arrest and disоrderly conduct. For the reasons outlined below, 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 dismissеd. Dixon later filed a supplemental motion to 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) аnd the applicable authority” that “[t]he City of Fairfield 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 alterсation.
{¶ 5} On February 25, 2016, Dixon entered into a plea 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 tо be completed on electrically monitored 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 tо serve 90 days in jail,
{¶ 6} Dixon now appeals from her convictions, raising fivе assignments of error for review.2 For ease of 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 miscоnduct by exhibiting a bias and prejudice against her. According 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 shе bears the burden of showing error by reference 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 сourt‘s proceeding and affirm.” State v. Gregory, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2006-05-016, 2006-Ohio-7037, ¶ 3. Therefore, because Dixon 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 statе by only accepting the state‘s video evidence, Exhibit 1, a surveillance 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 clаim that the trial court engaged in judicial misconduct by exhibiting a bias and 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 before 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.