Vincent A. Parker, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Defendant-Appellee.
from the Court of Claims of Ohio Ct. of Cl. No. 2013-00154
brief: Vincent Parker, pro se.
brief: Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Stacy Hannan,
1} Vincent A. Parker is appealing from the judgment
of the Court of Claims of Ohio which awarded him $210.60 as a
result of the loss of his legal footlocker. He assigns four
errors for our consideration:
[I.] The trial court committed plain error when it
re-litigated an issue that had already been decided in a
[II.] The trial court abused it's discretion when it
adopted the defendant's objection, without allowing
plaintiff the opportunity to reply pursuant to Local Court
[of] Claims Rule 4(C), in violation of due process of law.
[III.] The trial court abused it's discretion when it
adopted defendant's objections, which were mere
allegations and denials, over a sworn affidavit.
[IV.] The trial court abused it's discretion when it
adopted the defendant's objections and accepted their
argument when it was not supported by legal authority.
2} Parker claimed that he had two footlockers before
he was transferred between prisons. Eventually one of the two
was lost. The Court of Claims decided that the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
("ODRC") was responsible for the loss of one of the
footlockers, but awarded Parker less money than Parker
wanted. Hence he has appealed.
3} We have no transcripts from the trial of this
case. We do have an App.R. 9(C) statement. Parker submitted
an affidavit of evidence which he hoped would be adopted by
the trial court. Counsel for ODRC objected to the affidavit
being so used. The trial court, as required by App.R. 9,
settled the issues and adopted an official App.R. 9(C)
statement which has been provided in the record before us.
The trial court is under significant pressure to settle the
issues related to App.R. 9(C) promptly because the appellate
rule contemplates that the App.R. 9(C) statement will not
delay the transmission of the trial court record. App.R. 9(C)
does not provide for a reply from an appellant after an
appellee has objected to the appellant's proffered
statement of evidence. In theory, the trial court has direct
and personal knowledge of the evidence presented at the trial
and will use that knowledge in settling the statement. Again
in theory, the trial court does not adopt objections, but can
consider the objections when adopting the App.R. 9(C)
4} Turning to some of the individual assignments of
error, the trial court is not literally addressing a motion
when it addresses App.R. 9(C). Parker had no right to reply
to the allegations set forth in the objection filed on behalf
of ODRC. Parker's position was supposed to be contained
in his initial filing. Local Court of Claims Rule 4(C)
addresses motions, not App.R. 9(C) situations.
5} The second assignment of error is overruled.
6} The trial court does not literally adopt
objections but settles the record as to the evidence which
will be before a court of appeals. The trial court does not
weigh the positions of the respective parties, but attempts
to provide the ...