State v. OchoaState v. Ochoa
For Plaintiff-Appellee
MARIA KALIS
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR
27 North Fifth Street, P. O. Box 189
Zanesville, Ohio 43702-0189
For Defendant-Appellant
MARGARET E. OCHOA, Pro Se
1520 Meadow Farm Church Road
Zanesville, Ohio 43701
{¶1} Appellant Margaret E. Ochoa appeals the April 27, 2010, decision of the Muskingum County Court , finding her guilty of one count of Dog at Large.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND LAW
{¶2} On March 18, 2010, Appellant Margaret E. Ochoa was cited for a “Dog at Large“, in violation of
{¶3} On April 9, 2010, a bench trial was held in this matter.
{¶4} By Judgment Entry filed April 27, 2010, the trial court found Appellant guilty as charged. Appellant was ordered to pay court costs
{¶5} On May 19, 2010, Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal of the trial court‘s decision.
{¶6} On June 8, 2010, the trial court docketed a Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment and Sentencing Entry, again ordering Appellant to pay court costs.
{¶7} Appellant now appeals the trial court‘s decision.
{¶8} Initially, we must begin by noting that Appellant has failed to comply with
{¶9} “(A) Brief of the appellant
{¶10} “The appellant shall include in its brief, under the headings and in the order indicated, all of the following:
{¶11} “(1) A table of contents, with page references.
{¶12} “(2) A table of cases alphabetically arranged, statutes, and other authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief where cited.
{¶14} “(4) A statement of the issues presented for review, with references to the assignments of error to which each issue relates.
{¶15} “(5) A statement of the case briefly describing the nature of the case, the course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below.
{¶16} “(6) A statement of facts relevant to the assignments of error presented for review, with appropriate references to the record in accordance with division (D) of this rule.
{¶17} “(7) An argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies. The argument may be preceded by a summary.
{¶18} “(8) A conclusion briefly stating the precise relief sought.”
{¶19} Appellant‘s brief does not satisfy the majority of the requirements of
{¶20} Instead of an Assignment of Error, Appellant has listed the following under the heading “State of Questions Presented“:
{¶21} “I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF FACT.”
{¶23} As an appellate court, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant, competent and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base its judgment. Cross Truck v. Jeffries (Feb. 10, 1982), Stark App. No. CA-5758, 1982 WL 2911. Accordingly, judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578.
{¶24} Upon review, we find that Appellant failed to file a transcript in compliance with
{¶25} Because the record lacks a transcript of the trial which would reflect whether the trial court‘s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence, we must presume the validity of the lower court‘s proceedings and affirm.
By: Wise, J.
Farmer, P. J., and
Delaney, J., concur.
JUDGES
JWW/d 1118
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the judgment of the Muskingum County Court is affirmed.
Costs assessed to Appellant.
JUDGES