Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Ashtabula
Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court, Eastern
District, Case No. 2017 TRD 01046 E. Judgment: Affirmed.
Specht, Assistant Prosecutor, Ashtabula County Courthouse
L. Beals, pro se, (Defendant-Appellant).
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.
Appellant, Holli L. Beals, pro se, appeals her conviction in
the Ashtabula County Court, Eastern District, for reckless
operation of a motor vehicle and a marked lane violation. At
issue is whether the violations of the Ohio Rules of
Appellate Procedure reflected in appellant's appellate
brief are serious enough to warrant the summary affirmance of
the trial court's judgment. For the reasons that follow,
Appellant was charged via citation with reckless operation,
in violation of Ord. 333.09(A), and a marked lane violation,
in violation of Ord. 331.08. Appellant, appearing pro se,
pled not guilty and the case proceeded to a bench trial.
Following the trial, the trial court found appellant guilty
of both charges and sentenced her.
Appellant appeals her conviction, asserting two assignments
of error, as follows:
"[1.] The trial court allowed witness (Ms. Sullivan) who
also was committing the same crimes to testify. By the way
the Officer Krenisky (sic) stated she also was in the wrong
doing the same thing Beals was doing.
"[2.] The trail (sic) court did not take into
consideration that Ms. Sullivan tried to cause an accident
with Holli Beals to hit her in the rear by slamming her
brakes on that was the reason for going over the double
Appellant's appellate brief does not comply with the Ohio
Rules of Appellate Procedure in several respects. Her brief
does not contain a table of cases, statutes, and other
authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief
where cited; a statement of facts supported by references to
the record; or a separate argument, with citations to legal
authority, in support of each assignment of error, in
violation of App.R. 12(A)(2), 16(A)(2), (6), and (7).
In Cook v. Wilson, 165 Ohio App.3d 202,
2006-Ohio-234 (10th Dist.), the appellant failed to argue
each assignment of error separately, as required by App.R.
12(A)(2) and App.R. 16(A)(7). The Tenth District stated:
The purpose behind the rule is to require the appellant to
specifically identify the error the appellant claims occurred
and the portion of the record that supports the claim of
error. Courts of appeals "cannot and will not search the
record in order to make arguments on appellants]
behalf." Helman v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 139 Ohio
App.3d 231, 240 (7th Dist.2000).
* * * App.R. 12(A)(2) recognizes this need for clarity and
requires that assignments of error be argued separately. The
failure to argue separately assigned errors is grounds for
summary affirmance. Guerry v. Guerry, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 77819, 2001 WL 1230830 (Oct. 11, 2001). See
Helman, supra, at 239-240. Cook, supra, at
Here, appellant failed to separately argue her assignments of
error by setting forth an argument containing her contentions
with respect to each assignment of error and the reasons in
support of the contentions, with citations to the
authorities, statutes, and parts of ...