State v. Lacy

[Cite as State v. Lacy, 2022-Ohio-2978.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
HURON COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. H-21-019
Appellee Trial Court No. CRI20210463
v.
Gary L. Lacy DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: August 26, 2022
*****
James Joel Sitterly, Huron County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Gary L. Lacy, Pro se.
*****
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a November 19, 2021 judgment of the Huron County
Court of Common Pleas, denying appellant’s November 15, 2021 pro se motion to
withdraw his November 1, 2021 guilty plea, entered by and through appointed counsel,
on one count of possession of fentanyl, in violation of R.C. 2925.11, a felony of the fifth
degree. For the reasons set forth below, this court dismisses the appeal and affirms the
judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} For purposes of context, we note that the entirety of the underlying
November 15, 2021 motion to withdraw stated, “There is no evidence of the record.”
{¶ 3} On appeal to this court, appellant, Gary L. Lacy, sets forth no assignments of
error, as required by App.R. 16(A)(3). In conjunction, appellant fails to cite any legal
authority or any facts from the record of evidence, as required by App.R. 16(A)(7).
{¶ 4} Rather, appellant submits the following two matters, captioned as “issues”:
[Crim.R. 11] does not properly govern the statute under which
appellant is convicted.
[Crim.R. 32.1] does not provide proper relief.
{¶ 5} Appellant’s brief submitted in support of this appeal presents no statement of
facts, no procedural case history, no references to the record of evidence, and cites no
legal authority.
{¶ 6} In response, appellee succinctly maintains, “Appellant’s assignments of
error [are] both incoherent complaints of Ohio jurisprudence in the broadest sense.
Further, the appellant has applied no facts from the record * * * [J]ustice would be
served by a dismissal of appellant’s appeal.” (Emphasis added). We concur.
{¶ 7} In support of this appeal, appellant presents a series of broad, baffling
statements.
2.
{¶ 8} Illustrative of the imperceptible content of this appeal, appellant states,
“Rules of Criminal Procedure are improper and are not directly expressed to govern a
criminal action or prosecution by grand jury indictment.”
{¶ 9} Similarly, appellant declares, “Justice is not relied upon by prejudice, or
unequal conditions * * * the common pleas court of conviction is a constitutionally
created court of law, not justice.”
{¶ 10} Appellant further conveys, “Appellee makes a big ado [sic] that appellant
failed to cited [sic] case laws [sic] in support.”
{¶ 11} In providing guidance to appellate courts faced with amorphous matters
such as that presented in the instant case, the Ohio Supreme Court has established that
appellate courts, “[A]re not obligated to search the record or formulate legal arguments
on behalf of the parties.” Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Nat. Res., Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 144
Ohio St.3d 278, 2015-Ohio-3731, 42 N.E.3d 718, ¶ 28.
{¶ 12} In accord with Risner, this court has previously held in response to appeals
that similarly failed to present supporting legal authority or cite to any facts from the
record, “Indeed, under the Rules of Appellate Procedure, [appellant] must establish each
assigned error through an argument supported by citations to legal authorities and facts in
the record. App.R. 16(A)(7). If an appellant fails to advance such an argument, a Court
of Appeals may disregard the assignment of error. App.R. 12(A)(2).” (Emphasis added).
State v. Boles, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1080, 2021-Ohio-363, ¶ 23.
3.
{¶ 13} We find that the record reflects that appellant has failed to present
cognizable assignments of error for our review, in contravention of App.R. 16(A)(3). We
further find that the record reflects that appellant has failed to present any statement of
the case describing the nature of the case, the course of proceedings, or a statement of
facts relevant to assignments of error presented for review, with references to the record,
in contravention of App.R. 16(A)(5) and (6). Lastly, we find that the record reflects that
appellant has failed to present any citation to legal authority or to the record of evidence
in support of this appeal, in contravention of App.R. 16(A)(7).
{¶ 14} As noted above, App.R. 12(A)(2) establishes that, “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).”
{¶ 15} Although appellant in the instant case has presented no assignments of
error for our review, in the interest of judicial economy, we shall construe the two above-
quoted statements captioned as “issues” to be assignments of error for purposes of the
disposition of this appeal.
{¶ 16} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, we find that appellant’s
assignments of error in the instant appeal failed to adhere to App.R. 16(A) on each of the
grounds enumerated in detail above. As such, pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(2), and in
4.
accord with Risner and Boles, we hereby disregard both assignments of error, and dismiss
this appeal.
{¶ 17} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Huron County Court of
Common Pleas is hereby affirmed. Appellant’s motion for leave to file a reply addendum
is denied as moot. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R.
24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
____________________________
Myron C. Duhart, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
5.