State v. Johnson ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Johnson, 2014-Ohio-5409.]
    COURT OF APPEALS
    LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    STATE OF OHIO                                    JUDGES:
    Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
    Plaintiff-Appellee                       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
    Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
    -vs-
    Case No. 14-CA-59
    JAMES W. JOHNSON
    Defendant-Appellant                      OPINION
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                      Appeal from the Licking County Municipal
    Court, Case Nos. 14-TRD-01194 and
    14-CRB-00265
    JUDGMENT:                                     Dismissed
    DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                        December 4, 2014
    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff-Appellee                        For Defendant-Appellant
    MARK D. GARDNER                               JAMES W. JOHNSON, PRO SE
    Hebron Prosecutor                             9128 Mt. Vernon Road
    23 South Park Place, Ste. 208                 St. Louisville, Ohio 43071
    Newark, Ohio 43055
    Licking County, Case No. 14-CA-59                                                       2
    Hoffman, P.J.
    {¶1}   Defendant-appellant James W. Johnson appeals the judgment entered by
    the Licking County Municipal Court. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
    {¶2}   Pursuant to a traffic citation served on February 9, 2014, Appellant was
    cited with the offense of driving under a license forfeiture suspension, in violation of
    R.C. 4510.11; failure to display license, in violation of R.C. 4507.35; and obstructing
    official business, in violation of R.C. 2921.31. A criminal complaint charging Appellant
    with the offenses was filed on February 10, 2014.
    {¶3}   Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. Appellant challenged
    the trial court’s personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court overruled the
    jurisdictional challenges on February 18, 2014.
    {¶4}   On March 7, 2014, a motion to consolidate the traffic and criminal cases
    was filed. The trial court granted the motion.
    {¶5}   A trial to the court was held on March 7, 2014. At the trial, Officer Keith
    Loughry testified he observed Appellant operating a vehicle in the Village of Hebron on
    February 9, 2014.     Upon running the license plate number of the vehicle, Officer
    Loughry found the owner of the vehicle was under suspension. The officer initiated a
    stop. Appellant admitted to the officer he was operating under a suspended license,
    and refused to provide the officer with his license or other identifying information.
    {¶6}   Officer Loughry informed Appellant he could not drive away from the
    scene, and Appellant refused to exit the vehicle. Officer Loughry called for other law
    Licking County, Case No. 14-CA-59                                                        3
    enforcement agencies, and over one and one-half hours later Appellant was finally
    removed from the vehicle.
    {¶7}   Officer Farmer and State Trooper Eitel also testified to the events.
    {¶8}   Following the presentation of evidence, the trial court convicted Appellant
    of driving under a suspended license, failure to display a license and obstructing official
    business.
    {¶9}   Appellant filed a pro se appeal.
    {¶10} Upon review of the Appellant's filing titled "THE STATE OF OHIO FIFTH
    CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AN ADMIRALTY/MARITIME TRIBUNAL" in this
    matter, we find Appellant's brief not to be in compliance with the Appellate Rules.
    {¶11} Ohio Rule of Appellate Procedure 16 requires:
    The appellant shall include in its brief, under the headings and in
    the order indicated, all of the following:
    (1) A table of contents, with page references.
    (2) A table of cases alphabetically arranged, statutes, and other
    authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief where cited.
    (3) A statement of the assignments of error presented for review,
    with reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected.
    (4) A statement of the issues presented for review, with references
    to the assignments of error to which each issue relates.
    (5) A statement of the case briefly describing the nature of the
    case, the course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below.
    Licking County, Case No. 14-CA-59                                                         4
    (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.
    (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.
    (8) A conclusion briefly stating the precise relief sought.
    Ohio Appellate Rule 12 reads:
    (A) Determination
    “***
    (2) The court may disregard an assignment of error presented for
    review if the party raising it fails to identify in the record the error on which
    the assignment of error is based or fails to argue the assignment
    separately in the brief, as required under App. R. 16(A).”
    {¶12} Compliance with the above-stated rules is mandatory. An appellate court
    may rely upon App.R. 12(A) in overruling or disregarding an assignment of error
    because of “the lack of briefing” on the assignment of error. Henry v. Gastaldo, 5th Dist.
    No.2005–AP–03–0022, 2005–Ohio–4109, citing Hawley v. Ritley (1988), 
    35 Ohio St. 3d 157
    , 159, 
    519 N.E.2d 390
    , 392–393; State v. Watson (1998) 126 Ohio App.3d, 316, 
    710 N.E.2d 340
    , discretionary appeal disallowed in (1998), 
    82 Ohio St. 3d 1413
    , 694 N .E.2d
    75.
    Licking County, Case No. 14-CA-59                                                           5
    {¶13} The document filed herein purporting to represent Appellant's brief does
    not comply in any substantial fashion whatsoever with the Ohio Rules of Appellate
    Procedure and the Local Rules of the Fifth Appellate Judicial District.
    {¶14} Appellant's brief fails to set forth any separate assignments of error;
    instead, it contains what we find to be a rather disjointed statement, with mention of
    topics ranging from international commerce, maritime law, estate trust/probate court,
    bankruptcy act, en legis trust name, nanny robot, Uniform Commercial Code, judicial
    misconduct, malicious prosecution, and false arrest/imprisonment to malum prohibition.
    The brief disjunctively enumerates facts and allegations. Appellant further fails to set
    forth any coherent rationale in support of the arguments, nor does he cite to those parts
    of the record relating to the arguments.
    {¶15} This Court will not assume the role of advocate for appellants in
    attempting to organize and prosecute the arguments on appeal. Recently, this Court
    observed in Musleve v. Musleve 5th Dist. No.2007CA00314, 2008–Ohio–3961, “It is not
    a function of this Court to construct a foundation for claims; failure to comply with the
    rules governing practice in the appellate court is a tactic which is ordinarily fatal.”
    {¶16} Appellants' failure to comply with Ohio Appellate Rule 16 is tantamount to
    failing to file a brief in this matter. “Errors not specifically pointed out in the record and
    separately argued by brief may be disregarded.” 
    Id. Licking County,
    Case No. 14-CA-59                                             6
    {¶17} For the foregoing reason, we order the appeal of the judgment of the
    Licking County Municipal Court be dismissed for want of prosecution.
    By: Hoffman, P.J.
    Gwin, J. and
    Farmer, J. concur
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-CA-59

Judges: Hoffman

Filed Date: 12/4/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/9/2014