From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Flynn

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning
Jul 12, 2024
2024 Ohio 4818 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)

Opinion

23 MA 0094

07-12-2024

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. R.P. FLYNN, Defendant-Appellant.

Atty. Gina DeGenova, Mahoning County Prosecutor and Atty. Edward A. Czopur, Assistant Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee Atty. Sean T. Logue, for Defendant-Appellant


Criminal Appeal from the Mahoning County Court #4, of Mahoning County, Ohio Case No. 2023 TR D 01848

Atty. Gina DeGenova, Mahoning County Prosecutor and Atty. Edward A. Czopur, Assistant Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Atty. Sean T. Logue, for Defendant-Appellant

BEFORE: Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Katelyn Dickey, Judges.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

WAITE, J.

{¶1} Appellant R.P. Flynn appeals his citation for speeding. He alleges that his traffic court conviction was against both the sufficiency and the manifest weight of the evidence. As no bench trial transcript was filed on appeal, this Court can only presume the regularity of the trial court proceedings and affirm the judgment. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On April 27, 2023, Appellant was issued a citation by the Ohio State Highway Patrol for speeding while traveling on I-80 in Austintown, Ohio. He was cited for going in excess of 65 m.p.h. in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D)(3), a minor misdemeanor. Appellant retained counsel, pleaded not guilty, and asked for a bench trial. Bench trial was held on July 19, 2023, however no transcript of trial is in the record. The trial court's judgment entry indicates that witnesses were sworn in and testimony was taken. The judge found Appellant guilty, fined him $100, and added $80 in court costs. The judgment entry was time-stamped on August 18, 2023. Appellant filed his timely appeal on August 28, 2023, retaining the same counsel on appeal who represented him at trial. He raises one assignment of error:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE LOWER COURT'S FINDING BECAUSE THE CONVICTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AS SUCH WOULD BE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

{¶3} Appellant contends his conviction for speeding is both against the sufficiency of the evidence, and the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant argues that Trooper Parillo, who issued the citation, could not verify that he properly used the laser gun to measure his speed and could not verify the laser gun was correctly calibrated. Appellee responds that we are unable to review the facts introduced at trial because no trial transcript was ordered and, thus, is not part of the record on appeal. Appellee is correct.

{¶4} Appellant's argument involves both the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence against him at trial. These are distinct but related legal concepts. "Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal question dealing with adequacy." State v. Pepin-McCaffrey, 186 Ohio App.3d 548, 2010-Ohio-617, 929 N.E.2d 476, ¶ 49 (7th Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). "Sufficiency is a term of art meaning that legal standard which is applied to determine whether a case may go to the jury or whether evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law." State v. Draper, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 07 JE 45, 2009-Ohio-1023, ¶ 14. When reviewing a conviction for sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court does not determine "whether the state's evidence is to be believed, but whether, if believed, the evidence against a defendant would support a conviction." State v. Rucci, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 13 MA 34, 2015-Ohio-1882, ¶ 14, citing State v. Merritt, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 09-JE-26, 2011-Ohio-1468, ¶ 34. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, all rational inferences are evaluated in the light most favorable to the prosecution. State v. Goff, 82 Ohio St.3d 123, 138, 694 N.E.2d 916 (1998).

{¶5} Weight of the evidence concerns "the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other." (Emphasis deleted.) Thompkins at 387. The appellate court reviews the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses, and determines whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed. State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-4215, 954 N.E.2d 596, ¶ 220, citing Thompkins at 387. "[T]he weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of the facts." State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 118, quoting State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 39 O.O.2d 366, 227 N.E.2d, 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus.

{¶6} Both of Appellant's arguments require a review of the evidence presented at trial. See City of Brook Park v. Rodojev, 161 Ohio St.3d 58, 2020-Ohio-3253, 161 N.E.3d 511, ¶ 4. The only means of doing so, however, is to conduct a review of the trial transcripts. The obligation for filing a transcript of proceedings rests on the Appellant. "It is appellant's responsibility to provide the court with a record of the facts, testimony, and evidence in support of her assignments of error." State v. Bugaj, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 06-BE-23, 2007-Ohio-964, ¶ 11. "Absent a complete transcript of proceedings, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings." State v. James, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 15 MA 0003, 2016-Ohio-4662, ¶ 10, citing Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980).

{¶7} "Any argument that [the trial] testimony is false and/or was not supported by the evidence requires this court to review [that] testimony and the evidence submitted at trial." Harrison Hills Ass'n, Inc. v. Hickman, 7th Dist. Carroll No. 04 CA 812, 2005-Ohio-4373, ¶ 10. "Failure to file a complete transcript or its equivalent is generally fatal to an appeal based on the manifest weight of the evidence." State v. Arrowood, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 1BA05, 2001-Ohio-3285 (June 5, 2021), *3.

{¶8} Without a trial transcript filed in this record, we have no way of reviewing either the sufficiency or the weight of the evidence presented at trial. For this reason, Appellant's assignment of error is overruled.

Conclusion

{¶9} Appellant argues that his conviction for speeding was against the sufficiency and the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant did not provide a trial transcript on appeal. Without a transcript, the sufficiency and weight of the evidence cannot be reviewed and we presume the regularity of the trial court's actions. For this reason, Appellant's assignment of error is overruled and his conviction and sentence for speeding are affirmed.

Robb, P.J. concurs.

Dickey, J. concurs.

For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, Appellant's assignment of error is overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the Mahoning County Court #4, of Mahoning County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against the Appellant.

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.


Summaries of

State v. Flynn

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning
Jul 12, 2024
2024 Ohio 4818 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
Case details for

State v. Flynn

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. R.P. FLYNN, Defendant-Appellant.

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning

Date published: Jul 12, 2024

Citations

2024 Ohio 4818 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)