[Cite as State v. Johnson, 2014-Ohio-5409.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
-vs-
Case No. 14-CA-59
JAMES W. JOHNSON
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Municipal
Court, Case Nos. 14-TRD-01194 and
14-CRB-00265
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 4, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
MARK D. GARDNER JAMES W. JOHNSON, PRO SE
Hebron Prosecutor 9128 Mt. Vernon Road
23 South Park Place, Ste. 208 St. Louisville, Ohio 43071
Newark, Ohio 43055
Licking County, Case No. 14-CA-59 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant James W. Johnson appeals the judgment entered by
the Licking County Municipal Court. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} Pursuant to a traffic citation served on February 9, 2014, Appellant was
cited with the offense of driving under a license forfeiture suspension, in violation of
R.C. 4510.11; failure to display license, in violation of R.C. 4507.35; and obstructing
official business, in violation of R.C. 2921.31. A criminal complaint charging Appellant
with the offenses was filed on February 10, 2014.
{¶3} Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. Appellant challenged
the trial court’s personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court overruled the
jurisdictional challenges on February 18, 2014.
{¶4} On March 7, 2014, a motion to consolidate the traffic and criminal cases
was filed. The trial court granted the motion.
{¶5} A trial to the court was held on March 7, 2014. At the trial, Officer Keith
Loughry testified he observed Appellant operating a vehicle in the Village of Hebron on
February 9, 2014. Upon running the license plate number of the vehicle, Officer
Loughry found the owner of the vehicle was under suspension. The officer initiated a
stop. Appellant admitted to the officer he was operating under a suspended license,
and refused to provide the officer with his license or other identifying information.
{¶6} Officer Loughry informed Appellant he could not drive away from the
scene, and Appellant refused to exit the vehicle. Officer Loughry called for other law
Licking County, Case No. 14-CA-59 3
enforcement agencies, and over one and one-half hours later Appellant was finally
removed from the vehicle.
{¶7} Officer Farmer and State Trooper Eitel also testified to the events.
{¶8} Following the presentation of evidence, the trial court convicted Appellant
of driving under a suspended license, failure to display a license and obstructing official
business.
{¶9} Appellant filed a pro se appeal.
{¶10} Upon review of the Appellant's filing titled "THE STATE OF OHIO FIFTH
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AN ADMIRALTY/MARITIME TRIBUNAL" in this
matter, we find Appellant's brief not to be in compliance with the Appellate Rules.
{¶11} Ohio Rule of Appellate Procedure 16 requires:
The appellant shall include in its brief, under the headings and in
the order indicated, all of the following:
(1) A table of contents, with page references.
(2) A table of cases alphabetically arranged, statutes, and other
authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief where cited.
(3) A statement of the assignments of error presented for review,
with reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected.
(4) A statement of the issues presented for review, with references
to the assignments of error to which each issue relates.
(5) A statement of the case briefly describing the nature of the
case, the course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below.
Licking County, Case No. 14-CA-59 4
(6) A statement of facts relevant to the assignments of error
presented for review, with appropriate references to the record in
accordance with division (D) of this rule.
(7) An argument containing the contentions of the appellant with
respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons
in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and
parts of the record on which appellant relies. The argument may be
preceded by a summary.
(8) A conclusion briefly stating the precise relief sought.
Ohio Appellate Rule 12 reads:
(A) Determination
“***
(2) The court may disregard an assignment of error presented for
review if the party raising it fails to identify in the record the error on which
the assignment of error is based or fails to argue the assignment
separately in the brief, as required under App. R. 16(A).”
{¶12} Compliance with the above-stated rules is mandatory. An appellate court
may rely upon App.R. 12(A) in overruling or disregarding an assignment of error
because of “the lack of briefing” on the assignment of error. Henry v. Gastaldo, 5th Dist.
No.2005–AP–03–0022, 2005–Ohio–4109, citing Hawley v. Ritley (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d
157, 159, 519 N.E.2d 390, 392–393; State v. Watson (1998) 126 Ohio App.3d, 316, 710
N.E.2d 340, discretionary appeal disallowed in (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 1413, 694 N .E.2d
75.
Licking County, Case No. 14-CA-59 5
{¶13} The document filed herein purporting to represent Appellant's brief does
not comply in any substantial fashion whatsoever with the Ohio Rules of Appellate
Procedure and the Local Rules of the Fifth Appellate Judicial District.
{¶14} Appellant's brief fails to set forth any separate assignments of error;
instead, it contains what we find to be a rather disjointed statement, with mention of
topics ranging from international commerce, maritime law, estate trust/probate court,
bankruptcy act, en legis trust name, nanny robot, Uniform Commercial Code, judicial
misconduct, malicious prosecution, and false arrest/imprisonment to malum prohibition.
The brief disjunctively enumerates facts and allegations. Appellant further fails to set
forth any coherent rationale in support of the arguments, nor does he cite to those parts
of the record relating to the arguments.
{¶15} This Court will not assume the role of advocate for appellants in
attempting to organize and prosecute the arguments on appeal. Recently, this Court
observed in Musleve v. Musleve 5th Dist. No.2007CA00314, 2008–Ohio–3961, “It is not
a function of this Court to construct a foundation for claims; failure to comply with the
rules governing practice in the appellate court is a tactic which is ordinarily fatal.”
{¶16} Appellants' failure to comply with Ohio Appellate Rule 16 is tantamount to
failing to file a brief in this matter. “Errors not specifically pointed out in the record and
separately argued by brief may be disregarded.” Id.
Licking County, Case No. 14-CA-59 6
{¶17} For the foregoing reason, we order the appeal of the judgment of the
Licking County Municipal Court be dismissed for want of prosecution.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Gwin, J. and
Farmer, J. concur