Pascual v. Pascual ( 2012 )

[Cite as Pascual v. Pascual, 2012-Ohio-5819.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF MEDINA )
AURORA S. PASCUAL C.A. No. 12CA0036-M
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
CORAZON S. PASCUAL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 12DV0091
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: December 10, 2012
MOORE, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Corazon S. Pascual, appeals from the April 30, 2012 order
of protection issued by the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic
Relations. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In April of 2012, Ms. Pascual lived with her two sisters, Aurora and Lourdes
Pascual. Aurora Pascual (“the petitioner”) filed an ex parte petition for a civil protection order
against Ms. Pascual alleging that, in avoiding Ms. Pascual’s attempts to hit her, she fell in their
driveway and was taken by ambulance to the hospital. A magistrate of the trial court found that
a temporary order of protection was not necessary, and set the matter for a full hearing. Prior to
the date of the hearing, the magistrate granted a continuance in order for the petitioner to retain
an attorney. On April 30, 2012, the trial court granted the petitioner an order of protection
against Ms. Pascual, which remains in effect until April 27, 2013.
2
{¶3} Ms. Pascual timely appealed and raised one assignment of error for our
consideration.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED ON THE ISSUES BROUGHT UP BY THE
MAGISTRATE OF THE MEDINA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN CONJUNCTION WITH HER
RULINGS ON CASE NO.: DV0091. THE COURT ORDER OF PROTECTION
FOR THE PETITIONER THAT TOOK EFFECT ON APRIL 30, 2012[,] ARE
INDICATED ON PAGE 2 OF FORM 10.01-1. REBUTTALS TO THE ISSUES
ARE SHOWN ON THE STATEMENT OF FACTS ON PAGE 8 OF THIS
BRIEF.
[1.] “THAT THE PETITIONER’S BODILY INJURY WAS CAUSED BY THE
REPONDENT WHEN AN ALTERCATION OVER THE MAIL RESULTED AS
THE PETITIONER TRIED TO AVOID BEING PHYSICALLY ATTACKED
BY THE RESPONDENT[.]”
[2.] “THAT THE PETITIONER OR PETITIONER’S FAMILY OR
HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS ARE IN DANGER OR HAVE BEEN A VICTIM
OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR SEXUALLY ORIENTED OFFENSES AS
DEFINED IN R.C. 3113.31A COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT[.]”
[3.] IN ADDITION, “THAT THE COURT ALSO ERRED WHEN THE
OPPOSING PARTY’S WITNESS’ TESTIMONIES WERE ACCEPTED BY
THE COURT WITHOUT THE WITNESS’ PRESENTING PROOF OR
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS SHE TESTIFIED FOR IN
THE COURT OF LAW.”
{¶4} Apparently, this case arose because of a confrontation between two sisters which
resulted in one falling, or being thrown to the ground, due to a dispute over the receipt of mail
from the mailbox at the house that they shared. The local police were contacted and responded to
take a report. Ms. Pascual objects to the magistrate’s determination granting her sister’s motion
for a civil protection order against her. Her argument, reduced to its essence, is that the
magistrate believed the testimony of her sister rather than Ms. Pascual’s testimony.
3
{¶5} As a preliminary matter, we note that Ms. Pascual has presented her arguments
before the trial court and this Court pro se. Regarding pro se litigants, this Court has often
indicated:
[P]ro se litigants should be granted reasonable leeway such that their motions and
pleadings should be liberally construed so as to decide the issues on the merits, as
opposed to technicalities. However, a pro se litigant is presumed to have
knowledge of the law and correct legal procedures so that he remains subject to
the same rules and procedures to which represented litigants are bound. He is not
given greater rights than represented parties, and must bear the consequences of
his mistakes. This Court, therefore, must hold [pro se appellants] to the same
standard as any represented party.
(Internal citations omitted.) Sherlock v. Myers, 9th Dist. No. 22071, 2004-Ohio-5178, ¶ 3.
{¶6} App.R. 16(A)(7) states, in pertinent part, that an appellant’s brief must include,
“[a]n 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.” Further, it is well settled
that “[a]ppellants have the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal.” “Where an
appellant fails to cite to any law supporting their assignments of error, it is not this [C]ourt’s duty
to create an argument for them.” Sherlock at ¶ 4, citing Cardone v. Cardone, 9th Dist. Nos.
18349, 18673, 1998 WL 224934, *8 (May 6, 1998).
{¶7} Here, Ms. Pascual has failed to cite to any legal authority in support of her
contention that the trial court erred in granting the petitioner’s order of protection. See App.R.
16(A)(7). While we decline to create Ms. Pascual’s legal arguments on appeal, we have
reviewed the record below and find no error in the trial court’s ruling adopting the magistrate’s
decision.
{¶8} Therefore, Ms. Pascual’s assignment of error is overruled.
4
III.
{¶9} In overruling Ms. Pascual’s sole assignment of error, the judgment of the Medina
County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Medina, 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(C). 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.
CARLA MOORE
FOR THE COURT
WHITMORE, P. J.
CARR, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
CORAZON S. PASCUAL, pro se, Appellant.
AURORA S. PASCUAL, pro se, Appellee.