State v. ParkerState v. Parker
On brief: Kenneth Parker, defendant-appellant, pro se.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
PER CURIAM
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Kenneth Parker, also known as Kaisan-Pamir:Bey, Kaisan Pamir Bey, Kaisan Pamir XI Aniyunwiah Bey, or Kaisan El Pamir XI Aniyunwiya Bey (“Parker“), appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of nonsupport of a dependent, imposing three years of community control, and ordering him to pay a child support arrearage. For the following reasons we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} Parker is the father of a child, K.D.P., born in 2016. In October 2019, Parker was indicted on one count of nonsupport of dependents, a fifth-degree felony violation of
{¶ 3} Following a multi-day trial, a jury convicted Parker of nonsupport of his dependent. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Parker to three years of community control and ordered him to pay a child support arrearage of $25,665.67. Parker timely appealed from the sentencing entry.
II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶ 4} Parker, pro se, assigns the following as trial court error:
- [1.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the defendant-Appellant in dismissing the appellant‘s action by prejudice of defendant in overruling the defendant‘s motion for Judgement [sic] of Acquittal made at the close of the Plaintiff‘s case[.]
- [2.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the prejudice of Defendant-Appellant, in admitting the States administrative order to compel payment to the FCCSEA.
- [3.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the prejudice of Defendant-Appellant in overruling the Defendant‘s request for disclosure of all prima facie binding contracts and documents[.]
- [4.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the prejudice of defendant-in-Appellant [sic] in overruling defendant‘s request for the State to furnish sufficient evidence essentially to establish the case is indeed a tort or criminal case.
- [5.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the defendant-Appellant in suppressing, then omitting, the defendant‘s witness‘s testimony[.]
- [6.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the defendant-Appellant in dismissing the appellant‘s action by prejudice of defendant in overruling the defendant‘s request for the State to adhere to the U.S. Constitution[.]
- [7.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the defendant-Appellant in compelling the defendant to a private
entities(FCCSEA), arbitrary Rules and Regulations subsequent to Ohio Revised Code.
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
{¶ 5} As an initial matter, we note Parker has failed to file a complete transcript of the jury trial proceedings. He filed a supplemental record on April 22, 2021, consisting of a 19-page excerpt of the proceedings containing a portion of the voir dire of Kerrick Lamont Jackson (“Jackson“). Other than this limited excerpt, however, we lack a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court.
{¶ 6} “The burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal rests with the party asserting error.” Lundeen v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-629, 2013-Ohio-112, ¶ 16. As the appellant in this case, Parker “bears the burden of showing error by reference to matters in the record.” Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980). “Pursuant to
{¶ 7} Additionally, under
{¶ 8} Despite Parker‘s failure to provide a complete transcript of the trial proceedings or identify in the record the grounds for his claims of error, in the interest of justice we will review each of his assignments of error to determine whether we have an adequate basis to review the merits.
{¶ 9} In his first assignment of error, Parker argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state‘s case-in-chief.
{¶ 10} Absent a transcript of the trial proceedings, we cannot determine whether Parker moved for acquittal under
{¶ 11} Parker argues in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence an administrative order requiring him to make child support payments. ” ‘[T]he admission or exclusion of relevant evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.’ ” State v. Robb, 88 Ohio St.3d 59, 69 (2000), quoting State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus. “Absent an abuse of
{¶ 12} In his third assignment of error, Parker argues the trial court erred by overruling his request for disclosure of all binding contracts and documents. In his fourth assignment of error, Parker claims the trial court erred by overruling his request that the state furnish sufficient evidence to establish a criminal offense. Both these assignments of error effectively challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury‘s verdict. As explained above, “without a transcript, we cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence.” Youngblood, 2015-Ohio-4043 at ¶ 30. Therefore, we overrule Parker‘s third and fourth assignments of error.
{¶ 13} Parker alleges in his fifth assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding witness testimony proffered in his defense. This appears to refer to testimony from Jackson. Although Parker has not filed a complete trial transcript, he filed a supplemental record containing the voir dire examination of Jackson. Parker‘s questions to Jackson during voir dire related to Jackson‘s experience with credit reports. These questions suggest Parker intended to proffer Jackson as an expert witness.
{¶ 14} “A trial court‘s ruling as to the admission or exclusion of expert testimony is within its broad discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” State v. Koss, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-970, 2014-Ohio-5042, ¶ 16. The transcript excerpt Parker has provided does not contain any ruling from the trial court on the admissibility of Jackson‘s testimony. Therefore, we do not know whether the trial court ultimately admitted or excluded Jackson as a witness. Even if the trial court excluded Jackson‘s testimony, without
{¶ 15} In his sixth assignment of error, Parker claims the trial court erred by overruling his request that the state adhere to the United States Constitution. In support of this assignment of error, Parker alleges his constitutional rights were deprived when he was forced to comply with the provisions of the Ohio Revised Code. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides “[t]his Constitution * * * shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
{¶ 16} Finally, in his seventh assignment of error, Parker alleges the trial court erred by compelling him to comply with the rules and regulations of the Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency. Parker‘s brief on appeal does not contain any argument related to this assignment of error.
IV. CONCLUSION
{¶ 17} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule Parker‘s seven assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
BROWN, SADLER and MENTEL, JJ., concur.
_____________