State v. Untied

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Contini

    2018 Ohio 4317 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)

    {¶29} It is not possible for us to determine whether the trial court properly granted dismissal of the first case, nor is the record of any alleged prosecutorial misconduct properly in the appellate record. In State v. Untied, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT97-0018, 1998 WL 401768, *8 (Mar. 5, 1998), we noted appellate review contemplates that the entire record be presented and if portions of the transcript necessary to resolve issues are not included, we must presume regularity in the trial court proceedings and affirm. State v. Hughes, 5th Dist. No. 15CA0008, 2016-Ohio-880, 60 N.E.3d 765, ¶ 35.

  2. State v. Bush

    2018 Ohio 1032 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    This principle is recognized in App.R. 9(B), which provides, in part, that '***the appellant shall in writing order from the reporter a complete transcript or a transcript of such parts of the proceedings not already on file as he deems necessary for inclusion in the record.***. "When 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 the assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm." Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384, 385(1980); State v. Untied, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT97-0018, 1998 WL 401768(Mar. 5, 1998). See, also, State ex rel. Hoag v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 125 Ohio St.3d 49, 2010-Ohio-1629, 925 N.E.2d 984, ¶ 12, citing Christy v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 77 Ohio St.3d 35, 39, 671 N.E.2d 1(1996); State ex rel. Duncan v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 405, 2007-Ohio-5346, 875 N.E.2d 578, ¶ 17.

  3. State v. Daniels

    2017 Ohio 1045 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)

    {¶18} In addition, the trial court used the P.S.I. in formulating appellant's sentence, but the P.S.I. has not been made part of the record for our review. In State v. Untied, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT97-0018, 1998 WL 401768, *8 (Mar. 5, 1998), we noted appellate review contemplates that the entire record be presented and if portions of the transcript necessary to resolve issues are not included, we must presume regularity in the trial court proceedings and affirm. The P.S.I. report could have been submitted "under seal" for our review.

  4. State v. Hendricks

    2017 Ohio 259 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)

    {¶18} The trial court also referred to the P.S.I. repeatedly in sentencing appellant but appellant did not include the P.S.I. in the record. In State v. Untied, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT97-0018, 1998 WL 401768, *8 (Mar. 5, 1998), we noted appellate review contemplates that the entire record be presented and if portions of the transcript necessary to resolve issues are not included, we must presume regularity in the trial court proceedings and affirm. The P.S.I. report could have been submitted under seal for our review.

  5. State v. Cremeans

    2016 Ohio 7930 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    See, State v. Hughes, 5th Dist. Coshocton No. 15CA00008, 2016-Ohio-880, 60 N.E.3d 765, ¶ 35. In State v. Untied, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT97-0018, 1998 WL 401768, *8 (Mar. 5, 1998), we noted appellate review contemplates that the entire record be presented and if portions of the transcript necessary to resolve issues are not included, we must presume regularity in the trial court proceedings and affirm. The P.S.I. report could have been submitted "under seal" for our review.

  6. State v. Hughes

    2016 Ohio 880 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 18 times

    {¶ 35} We further note the trial court referred to the P.S.I. repeatedly in sentencing appellant but appellant did not include the P.S.I. in the record. In State v. Untied, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT97–0018, 1998 WL 401768, *8 (Mar. 5, 1998), we noted appellate review contemplates that the entire record be presented and if portions of the transcript necessary to resolve issues are not included, we must presume regularity in the trial court proceedings and affirm. The P.S.I. report could have been submitted “under seal” for our review.

  7. State v. Hale

    2014 Ohio 5028 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)

    We also note that we do not know the specific contents of the pre-sentence investigation report as appellant did not make them a part of the record. In State v. Untied, 5th Dist. Muskingum. No. CT97-0018, 1998 WL 401768(March 5, 1998), we addressed the issue of failure to include the pre-sentence investigation report and stated: Appellate review contemplates that the entire record be presented. App. R. 9.