State v. Campbell

[Cite as State v. Campbell, 2011-Ohio-5433.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF MEDINA )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 10CA0120-M
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
MICHAEL C. CAMPBELL WADSWORTH MUNICIPAL COURT
COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 10-TRD-01929
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: October 24, 2011
WHITMORE, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Michael Campbell, appeals from his conviction in the
Wadsworth Municipal Court. This Court affirms.
I
{¶2} On April 23, 2010, Campbell was issued a citation for speeding, in violation of
R.C. 4511.21(D)(2), after an officer used a laser speed measuring device to determine that
Campbell had exceeded the posted speed limit. A motion hearing took place on September 29,
2010. According to the journal entry scheduling the hearing, the issues to be addressed at the
hearing were Campbell’s motion to suppress and a request that the court take judicial notice of
the accuracy and reliability of the laser device at issue. On October 4, 2010, the court issued a
judgment entry, indicating that it would take judicial notice of the accuracy and reliability of the
device based upon the expert testimony presented at the hearing. A bench trial took place shortly
after the hearing, and the court found Campbell guilty of speeding.
2
{¶3} Campbell now appeals from his conviction and raises two assignments of error for
our review. We consolidate the assignments of error.
II
Assignment of Error Number One
“WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY
TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE AS TO THE RELIABILITY AND ACCURACY
OF THE LASER SPEED DETECTION DEVICE AFTER THE STATE’S
EXPERT WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT THE SAME DEVICE HAS A KNOWN
DEFECT.”
Assignment of Error Number Two
“WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE STATE’S
WITNESS CREDIBLE BASED, IN PART, UPON PRIOR DEALINGS
BETWEEN THE TRIAL COURT AND THE STATE’S WITNESS, WHEN THE
WITNESS’S TESTIMONY ITSELF RAISES DOUBT TO HIS CREDIBILITY.”
{¶4} In his assignments of error, Campbell challenges the trial court’s decision to take
judicial notice of the laser device at issue and the evidence supporting his conviction. Because
Campbell has failed to provide this Court with a proper transcript, we presume regularity in the
proceedings below.
{¶5} Loc.R. 5(A)(1)(b) provides as follows:
“Pursuant to [former] App.R. 9(A),1 a videotape recording of a proceeding that
has been certified by the official court reporter may constitute the transcript of
proceedings without being transcribed into written form; the parts of a videotape
transcript necessary for the court to determine the questions presented, however,
must be typed or printed and appended to the appellant’s brief. An audiotape
recording of a proceeding must be transcribed into written form in all cases.”
“When an appellant fails to provide a complete and proper transcript, a reviewing court will
presume the regularity of the proceedings in the trial court and affirm.” State v. Woods, 9th Dist.
1
Amendments to App.R. 9 took effect on July 1, 2011.
3
No. 23414, 2007-Ohio-1423, at ¶9, citing State v. Johnson, 9th Dist. No. 02CA008193, 2003-
Ohio-6814, at ¶9.
{¶6} The record here only contains a digital recording of both the motion hearing that
took place on September 29, 2010 and the bench trial that took place on October 6, 2010. This
Court was unable to open the contents of the digital recording submitted with the record, so it is
unclear whether the recording is an audio recording or a video recording. Either way, however,
the digital recording does not comply with this Court’s local rule. While it was certified by the
court reporter, the digital recording was not transcribed into written form. Accordingly,
Campbell failed to provide this Court with a proper transcript. Loc.R. 5(A)(1)(b) (requiring
necessary portions of a certified video recording to be transcribed and for an audio recording to
be transcribed in all cases).
{¶7} Both of Campbell’s assignments of error depend upon testimony adduced at the
motion hearing and trial. This Court does not have a written transcript of either proceeding. In
the absence of a proper transcript, this Court must presume regularity in the proceedings and
affirm the decision of the trial court. Woods at ¶9. Thus, Campbell’s assignments of error are
overruled.
III
{¶8} Campbell’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Wadsworth
Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
4
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Wadsworth
Municipal Court, 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(E). 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.
BETH WHITMORE
FOR THE COURT
CARR, P. J.
MOORE, J.
CONCUR
APPEARANCES:
MICHAEL C. CAMPBELL, pro se, Appellant.
PAGE C. SCHROCK, III, Assistant Director of Law, for Appellee.