City of Mentor v. Robert D. Henry, 92-LW-4034

• Decision Date: 04 September 1992
• Docket Number: 92-LW-4034,91-L-163
• Citation: City of Mentor v. Robert D. Henry, 91-L-163, 92-LW-4034 (Ohio App. Sep 04, 1992)
• Parties: CITY OF MENTOR, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROBERT D. HENRY, Defendant-Appellant CASE
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

CITY OF MENTOR, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROBERT D. HENRY, Defendant-Appellant

No. 91-L-163.

92-LW-4034 (11th)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Lake County.

September 4, 1992

Criminal Appeal from Mentor Municipal Court, Case No. 91 TRC 5189.

ATTY RONALD GRAHAM, MENTOR CITY PROSECUTOR, 8500 Civic Center Boulevard, Mentor, Ohio 44060 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

ATTY JOHN W. SHRYOCK, 3951 Erie Street, #102, P.O. Box 192 Willoughby, Ohio 44094 (For Defendant-Appellant).

Before HON. DONALD R. FORD, P.J., HON. JOSEPH E. MAHONEY J., HON RANDALL L. BASINGER, J., Putnam County Court of Common Pleas, sitting by assignment.

OPINION

BASINGER J.

This is an accelerated calendar case in which appellantRobert D. Henry is appealing the Mentor Municipal Court's denial of his motion to suppress.

On August 24, 1991, at 2:25 a.m., appellant was cited by a Mentor police officer for several violations: speeding in violation of Mentor Ordinance 73.01; driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of Mentor Ordinance71.1(A)(1); and resisting arrest in violation of Mentor Ordinance134.10(A).Initially, appellant pleaded not guilty to all three charges.He also waived his right to speedy trial.

On September 26, 1991, appellant filed a motion to suppress.

This case came before the trial court for hearing on November 8, 1991.The speeding and resisting arrest charges were dismissed.Appellant changed his not, guilty plea to no contest on the driving under the influence charge.

The trial court apparently overruled appellant's motion to suppress because the trial court found appellant guilty of driving under the influence.Appellant was then -sentenced.

On November 22, 1991, the trial court entered its written amended judgment entry overruling appellant's motion to suppress.Specifically, the trial court found after taking the evidence that appellant"*** had an odor of alcohol, bloodshot and glassy eyes, slurred speech, exceeded the posted speed limit, and refused to exit his vehicle upon the Officer's request***."The trial court found that there was sufficient probable cause to arrest appellant for driving under the influence.

Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal and now raises one assignment of error:

"The trial court committed prejudicial error when it denied defendant's motion to suppress for lack of probable cause for the arrest of appellant on the charge of driving under the influence, all in violation of appellant's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights."

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.Appellant has failed to file any transcript or statement complying with App. R. 9.This court must assume the validity of the proceedings of the trial court based on the limited record before this court.

Given the record before this court, we are unable to discern what transpired on the date of the arrest or what evidence was presented when the trial court considered appellant's motion to suppress.It is appellant's duty to provide a transcript or a statement pursuant to App. R. 9.Without a transcript or a statement complying with App. R. 9, we must presume the validity of the trial court's proceedings and conclusions.State v. Boughner(July 19, 1991), Geauga App.No. 90-G-1584, unreported;State v. Schwaiger(June 28, 1991), Portage App.No. 90-P-2227, unreported.

Having failed to demonstrate...