Univ. Hts. v. Johanan
Citations
- 2022 Ohio 2578
Syllabus
App.R. 16(A)(7) App.R. 16(A)(3) App.R. 12(A)(2) transcript App.R. 9 presume regularity. - Appellant's conviction affirmed where appellant's brief did not separately argue the assignments of error as required by App.R. 16(A)(7) and did not cite to portions of the record to support the assignments of error as required by App.R. 16(A)(3), and therefore, pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(2), the appellate court was within its discretion to summarily overrule the assignments of error and affirm the trial court. Also, because appellant did not make a transcript part of the appellate record as required by App.R. 9, the appellate court could presume regularity in the trial court proceedings and the presence of sufficient evidence to support appellant's conviction.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- fifteen months between incident and identification not enough under totality of circumstances to render identification unreliable
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Keough
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.