State v. Martin , 2022 Ohio 1884 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Martin, 2022-Ohio-1884.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. 21CA0084
:
CODY MARTIN :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking Municipal Court,
Case No. 21TRD07884
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 3, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
J. MICHAEL KING CODY MARTIN, PRO SE
ASSISTANT LAW DIRECTOR 7102 Town Market Lane W.
CITY OF NEWARK Apt. 201
40 West Main St., Fourth Floor New Albany, OH 43054
Newark, OH 43055
[Cite as State v. Martin, 2022-Ohio-1884.]
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Appellant Cody Martin appeals from the September 8, 2021 judgment entry
of conviction upon one count of speeding in the Licking Municipal Court. Appellee is the
state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} This case arose on September 2, 2021, when appellant was cited for
speeding in the city of Newark. The facts underlying the speeding allegation are
contained in a “Citation Statement of Fact” prepared by Officer Carles of the Newark
Police Department dated September 3, 2021:
* * * *.
On [September 2, 2021 at 20:29] I was sitting stationary in
marked cruiser 21 on SR 16 WB when I observed listed vehicle
traveling WB on SR 16 at a high rate of speed. I estimated the speed
of the vehicle at 85 MPH. I obtained three speed clocking’s of 82,
84, and 84 MPH at 1005.8 feet (sic). A traffic stop was conducted
and I made contact with the driver who was identified as [appellant].
I advised [appellant] the reason he had been stopped and what the
speed limit on SR 16 is. He was then issued a citation for this
speeding violation and was released without further incident.
I conducted a calibration check on my LTI 20-20 Laser at the
start of my shift. External and Internal calibration checks were
successful.
Laser SN# UX016642.
[Cite as State v. Martin, 2022-Ohio-1884.]
* * * *.
{¶3} The record reflects that appellant was charged by Uniform Traffic Ticket
with one count of speeding [84 in 55 zone] pursuant to Newark Ordinance 434.03.
Appellant was summonsed to appear in Licking County Municipal Court on September 8,
2021.
{¶4} Appellant appeared on his arraignment date and entered a plea of not guilty.
The matter was scheduled for bench trial on September 28, 2021.
{¶5} On September 10, 2021, appellant filed a pro se “motion for complete
discovery.”
First written motion to continue granted
{¶6} On September 15, 2021, appellant filed a pro se motion to continue the trial
date of September 28, stating he “will not be able to make the bench trial date * * * due
to prior commitments.” On September 16, 2021, the trial court journalized a Court Order
scheduling a bench trial for October 11, 2021.
{¶7} On September 23, 2021, appellee responded to appellant’s discovery
demand.
{¶8} On September 28, 2021, appellant filed a pro se demand for additional
discovery, requesting “the audio and video from the dash camera of Officer Steven Carles
cruiser from September 2 2021 pertaining to case number 21TRD07884.”
Second written motion to continue denied
{¶9} On October 1, 2021, appellant filed a pro se motion for continuance stating
the following: “Because I found out that this will negatively impact my employment I am
forced to seek out legal counsel and advice so this does not impact my future and my
[Cite as State v. Martin, 2022-Ohio-1884.]
standard of living. I would like to ask for a continuance for this case so I am fully informed
and I have an opportunity to obtain legal counsel and representation.”
{¶10} A handwritten note on the motion to continue states, “Denied,” signed by
Michael T. Brandt, Ret. Judge, Sitting by Assignment.
Third written motion to continue denied
{¶11} Appellant filed another pro se motion to continue on October 6, 2021, this
one stating: “The defendant, [appellant], is requesting a motion for continuance for a
witness to come in and testify for this case. The defendants operation manager is not
available at the time and date currently scheduled for the hearing. This party a detrimental
part to the defendants defense.” (Sic throughout.)
{¶12} A handwritten note on the motion to continue states, “Denied,” signed by
Michael T. Brandt, Ret. Judge, Sitting by Assignment.
{¶13} A trial evidently took place on October 12, 2021, and appellant was found
guilty by the trial court; a transcript of the trial is not in the record before us. A signed
judgment entry from that date notes appellant was found guilty, fined $64.00, and given
60 days to pay fines and court costs.
Appellate procedural history: motion to supplement record denied
{¶14} Appellant filed a notice of appeal from his conviction and sentence on
October 21, 2021.
{¶15} On November 23, 2021, a “Notification of Filing of Record” was filed by the
Licking County Clerk of Court, noting a transcript of proceedings was not filed with the
record.
[Cite as State v. Martin, 2022-Ohio-1884.]
{¶16} On December 13, 2021, appellant filed a pro se motion to file brief instanter.
We granted the motion on January 14, 2022. Appellant’s brief was also filed on that date.
{¶17} Appellee filed its brief on January 28, 2022, noting, e.g., appellant failed to
file a transcript of the bench trial.
{¶18} Appellant filed a reply brief on February 9, 2022.
{¶19} On February 10, 2022, appellant filed a motion before this Court to
supplement the record with the transcript of the proceedings. We overruled the motion
on March 10, 2022, finding no indication a transcript was ordered or prepared, and
appellant’s motion to supplement the record did not contain a certificate of service.
{¶20} Appellant now raises one assignment of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶21} “LICKING COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT KNOWINGLY WRECKLESSLY
VIOLATED MR MARTINS CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATE RIGHTS BY NOT
ALLOWING HIM TO OBTAIN COUNSEL OR LEGAL CONSULTATION. THEY ALSO
WOULD NOT ALLOW HIM TO HAVE A DETRIMENTAL PART OF HIS DEFENSE TO
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW UP. ALLOWING ONLY 6 DAYS OF NOTICE
WHICH IS LESS THAN A WEEKS NOTICE FOR A PERSON TO CLEAR THEIR
SCHEDULE.” (sic throughout.)
ANALYSIS
{¶22} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court should have
continued the bench trial because he wanted to consult legal counsel and to call a witness
on his behalf. We disagree.
[Cite as State v. Martin, 2022-Ohio-1884.]
{¶23} We begin by noting appellant filed three written motions to continue before
the trial; the first motion was granted and the latter two were denied. The case proceeded
to trial, but whether appellant renewed his motions to continue, or objected to the trial
court’s decision overruling the motions, is unknown because we have no transcript.
Appellee states no objection was raised until after the trial began. Appellee’s Brief, 1.
The basis for any such objection, and the trial court’s ruling, are not in the record.
{¶24} In reviewing assigned errors on appeal we are confined to the record that
was before the trial court as defined in App.R. 9(A). This rule provides that the record on
appeal consists of “[t]he original papers and exhibits thereto filed in the trial court, the
transcript of proceedings, if any, including exhibits, and a certified copy of the docket and
journal entries prepared by the clerk of the trial court.”
{¶25} App.R. 9(B) also provides in part “ * * *[w]hen portions of the transcript
necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing
court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no
choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.”
{¶26} In Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories the Ohio Supreme Court stated: “The
duty to provide a transcript for appellate review falls upon the appellant. This is
necessarily so because an appellant bears the burden of showing error by reference to
matters in the record.” 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980).
{¶27} Appellant has not provided a transcript of the bench trial which began on
October 11, 2021. Without a transcript, we must presume the regularity of the trial court’s
proceeding on the motion to continue. State v. Ellis, 5th Dist. No. 11-COA-015, 2011-
Ohio-5646, *2. Appellant argues a motion to continue should have been granted because
[Cite as State v. Martin, 2022-Ohio-1884.]
he sought a witness to testify about the impact of a speeding conviction upon his
employment. Without a transcript of the trial, we are unable to evaluate what relevance,
if any, such evidence would have to the proceedings below.
{¶28} For the sake of argument, even if we evaluate the trial court’s denial of a
continuance upon the merits, appellant’s arguments are not well-taken. We review a trial
court's decision to deny a request for a continuance for abuse of discretion. State v.
Dinger, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2020CA00177, 2022-Ohio-608, ¶ 28, citing Hamad v. Hamad,
10th Dist. No. 12AP-617, 2013-Ohio-2212, 2013 WL 2394974, ¶ 13, internal citation
omitted. “[A]buse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies
that the trial court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v.
Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶29} When examining a trial court's denial of a motion for a continuance, a
reviewing court “must weigh any potential prejudice to the defendant against a court's
right to control its own docket and the public's interest in the efficient dispatch of justice.”
Dinger, supra, 2022-Ohio-608 at ¶ 29, citing State v. Woods, 10th Dist. Franklin No.
09AP-667, 2010-Ohio-1586, 2010 WL 1408317, ¶ 24. Factors to consider when reviewing
a motion for a continuance include, but are not limited to, the following: “the length of
delay requested; whether other continuances have been requested and received; the
inconvenience to litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel and the court; whether the
requested delay is for legitimate reasons or whether it is dilatory, purposeful, or contrived;
whether the defendant contributed to the circumstance which gives rise to the request for
a continuance; and other relevant factors, depending on the unique facts of each case.’ ”
Id.[Cite as State v. Martin, 2022-Ohio-1884.]
{¶30} In the instant case, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying appellant’s third motion to continue. The motion to continue was made at trial.
As noted supra, we do not have the benefit of the trial transcript, but appellant submitted
written motions to continue before the trial date which were denied. There is no evidence
in the record what steps, if any, appellant took to obtain counsel. Appellant also claimed
a witness was unavailable; based upon the statement of facts as to how the speeding
offense occurred, it is not apparent to us how a witness could have shed further light on
this matter, and appellant does not explain how the unavailability of the witness prejudiced
him.
{¶31} We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion on overruling the
motion to continue. Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶32} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the
Licking County Municipal Court is affirmed.
By: Delaney, J.,
Wise, John, P.J. and
Baldwin, J., concur.