State v. Murphy

[Cite as State v. Murphy, 2017-Ohio-8513.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF WAYNE )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 17AP0014
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
BRADY MURPHY WAYNE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT
COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 2017 TR-D 001417
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: November 13, 2017
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Brady Murphy, appeals the judgment of the Wayne County Municipal
Court. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} This matter arises out of a traffic accident involving Murphy that occurred in
Wayne County, Ohio on November 25, 2016. Murphy was eventually charged with one count of
operating a motor vehicle without a valid license. Murphy pleaded not guilty to the charge and
the matter proceeded to a bench trial. The trial court found Murphy guilty of the charge and
imposed a $100 fine. The trial court specified that the fine and court costs were to be paid within
180 days.
{¶3} On appeal, Murphy raises one assignment of error.
2
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR DRIVING WITHOUT OPERATOR[’]S
LICENSE WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS
AND POLITICAL BELIEFS, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO
LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY GRANTED TO MURPHY IN THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
{¶4} In his sole assignment of error, Murphy argues that his conviction for driving
without a license was against the manifest weight of the evidence. This Court disagrees.
{¶5} We cannot reach the merits of Murphy’s assignment of error. “‘It is the
appellant’s responsibility to ensure that the record on appeal contains all matters necessary to
allow this Court to resolve the issues on appeal.’” State v. Boatright, 9th Dist. Summit No.
28101, 2017-Ohio-5794, ¶ 46, quoting State v. Farnsworth, 9th Dist. Medina No. 15CA0038-M,
2016-Ohio-7919, ¶ 16, citing App.R. 9. Resolving Murphy’s assignment of error necessitates a
review of the trial transcript. Murphy has not included a trial transcript in the appellate record,
nor has he included a statement of the evidence pursuant to App. 9(C). Under circumstances
such as this where the appellant has not provided a complete record to facilitate our review, we
must presume regularity in the trial court’s proceedings and affirm. State v. Jalwan, 9th Dist.
Medina No. 09CA0065-M, 2010-Ohio-3001, ¶ 12, citing Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories., 61
Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980).
{¶6} Murphy’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶7} Murphy’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Wayne County
Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
3
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Wayne County
Municipal Court, County of Wayne, 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.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
SCHAFER, P. J.
TEODOSIO, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
BRADY MURPHY, pro se, Appellant.
DANIEL R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATHAN R. SHAKER, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for Appellee.