assigned error in Ohio

2026“When the transcript necessary for resolution of the assigned error is omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to review and thus, ‘as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower’s courts proceedings, and affirm.’” Id., quoting Knapp at 199 .

2025“When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of the assigned error(s) are omitted from the record, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and to affirm.” Knapp v. Edwards Labs., 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980).

2026In short, “‘if an argument exists that can support this assigned error, it is not this court’s duty to root it out.’” Strauss v. Strauss, 2011-Ohio-3831, ¶ 72 (8th Dist.), quoting Cardone v. Cardone, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 2028 , *22 (9th Dist.

2026Appellate courts are not advocates.”). ‘“[I]f an argument exists that can support this assigned error, it is not this court’s duty to root it out.’” Strauss v. Strauss, 2011-Ohio-3831, ¶ 72 (8th Dist.), quoting Cardone v. Cardone, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 2028 , *22 (9th Dist.

2026It is not this court's duty "to 'root out' or develop an argument that can support an assigned error, even if one exists." Crawford at ¶ 15 , quoting Lebanon v. Ballinger, 2015-Ohio-3522, ¶ 27 (12th Dist.).

2025Further, "[i]t is not this court's duty to 'root out' or develop an argument that can support an assigned error, even if one exists." State v. Phipps, 2024-Ohio-4832, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.), citing Lebanon v. Ballinger, 2015-Ohio-3522, ¶ 27 (12th Dist.).

2014Montgomery No. 24134, 2011-Ohio-5947, ¶ 28 , citing Lamar v. Marbury, 69 Ohio St.2d 274, 277 , 431 N.E.2d 1028 (1982) (“In reviewing an assigned error on appeal, pursuant to App. R. 12(A)(1)(b), we are confined to the record that was before the trial court as defined in App. R. 9(A)”). {¶ 15} Because the record establishes that BOA presented sufficient evidence entitling it to summary judgment, and because the Moxleys failed to file a response establishing that a genuine issue of material fact exists, we find that summary judgment was correctly granted in favor of BOA. {¶ 16} The Moxleys’ sole

2014Montgomery No. 24134, 2011-Ohio-5947, ¶ 28 , citing Lamar v. Marbury, 69 Ohio St.2d 274, 277 , 431 N.E.2d 1028 (1982) (“In reviewing an assigned error on appeal, pursuant to App. R. 12(A)(1)(b), we are confined to the record that was before the trial court as defined in App. R. 9(A)”). {¶ 15} Because the record establishes that BOA presented sufficient evidence entitling it to summary judgment, and because the Moxleys failed to file a response establishing that a genuine issue of material fact exists, we find that summary judgment was correctly granted in favor of BOA. {¶ 16} The Moxleys’ sole

2022We will consider the merits of the assigned error as they relate to the Domestic Violence conviction. {¶16} In order to convict Swift of Domestic Violence, the State was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did “knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member.” R.C. 2919.25(A). {¶17} Swift argues that defense counsel did not effectively represent her, pointing to his failure to object to questions relating to her criminal record and that she was “prejudiced because evidence of other bad acts was presented which affected the value of the evide

2022We will consider the merits of the assigned error as they relate to the Domestic Violence conviction. {¶16} In order to convict Swift of Domestic Violence, the State was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did “knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member.” R.C. 2919.25(A). {¶17} Swift argues that defense counsel did not effectively represent her, pointing to his failure to object to questions relating to her criminal record and that she was “prejudiced because evidence of other bad acts was presented which affected the value of the evide

2026May 6, 1998); Bertalan v. Bertalan, 2025-Ohio-1443, ¶ 77 (8th Dist.); Manning v. Cuyahoga Metro.

2025May 6, 1998); Bertalan v. Bertalan, 2025-Ohio-1443, ¶ 77 (8th Dist.).

2020Because “the state is not entitled to retry a criminal defendant after reversal for trial court error if the state failed in the first instance to present sufficient evidence * * * a defendant’s assigned error that the conviction is based on insufficient evidence is not moot under these circumstances.” State v. Vanni, 182 Ohio App.3d 505 , 2009-Ohio-2295 , 913 N.E.2d 985, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.), citing State v. Brewer, 121 Ohio St.3d 202 , 2009-Ohio-593 , 903 N.E.2d 284 . {¶ 79} In reviewing a record for sufficiency, “[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favo

2020Because “the state is not entitled to retry a criminal defendant after reversal for trial court error if the state failed in the first instance to present sufficient evidence * * * a defendant’s assigned error that the conviction is based on insufficient evidence is not moot under these circumstances.” State v. Vanni, 182 Ohio App.3d 505 , 2009-Ohio-2295 , 913 N.E.2d 985, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.), citing State v. Brewer, 121 Ohio St.3d 202 , 2009-Ohio-593 , 903 N.E.2d 284 . {¶ 79} In reviewing a record for sufficiency, “[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favo

2006See Hartt v. Munobe , 67 Ohio St.3d 3 , 7 , 615 N.E.2d 617 , 1993-Ohio-177 . {¶ 12} As stated by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197 , 400 N.E.2d 384 : "The duty to provide a transcript for appellate review falls upon the appellant.

2006See Hartt v. Munobe , 67 Ohio St.3d 3 , 7 , 615 N.E.2d 617 , 1993-Ohio-177 . {¶ 12} As stated by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197 , 400 N.E.2d 384 : "The duty to provide a transcript for appellate review falls upon the appellant.

2026(Appellant did not demonstrate error where his brief made conclusory statements that the court erred but did not provide supportive legal arguments.); Story v. Story, 2021-Ohio-2439, ¶ 30 (8th Dist.) (Appellate court not obligated to construct or develop arguments for appellant or to guess at undeveloped claims.); Strauss v. Strauss, 2011-Ohio-3831, ¶ 72 (8th Dist.) (‘“If an argument exists that can support this assigned error, it is not this court’s duty to root it out.’”), quoting Cardone v. Cardone, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 2028 , *22 (9th Dist.

2025See Story v. Story, 2021-Ohio-2439, ¶ 30 (8th Dist.) (appellate court not obligated to construct or develop arguments for appellant or to guess at undeveloped claims); Strauss v. Strauss, 2011-Ohio-3831, ¶ 72 (8th Dist.) (‘“If an argument exists that can support this assigned error, it is not this court’s duty to root it out.’”), quoting Cardone v. Cardone, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 2028 , *22 (9th Dist.

2025In this regard, “It is the duty of the appellant, not an appellate court, to demonstrate an assigned error through an argument that is supported by citations to legal authority and facts in the record.” (Cleaned up.) State v. Singleton, 2025-Ohio-1735, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.); see also State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-4034, ¶ 19 , citing State v. Bodyke, 2010-Ohio- 2424, ¶ 78 (O’Donnell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

2023See State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2010-Ohio-2424 , 933 N.E.2d 753, ¶ 78 (O’Donnell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C.Cir.1983).

2026State v. Brewer, 2009-Ohio-593 , ¶ 7-8, citing State v. Brewer, 2007-Ohio-2079 ; Gideon at ¶ 28 . “‘Because “the state is not entitled to retry a criminal defendant after reversal for trial court error if the state failed in the first instance to present sufficient evidence . . . a defendant’s assigned error that the conviction is based on insufficient evidence is not moot under these circumstances.”’” Gideon at ¶ 27 , quoting State v. Mathis, 2020-Ohio-3068, ¶ 78 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Vanni, 2009-Ohio-2295 , ¶ 15 (9th Dist.). {¶ 23} “A sufficiency of the evidence argument disputes whe

2025See State v. Gideon, 2020-Ohio-6961, ¶ 27 , quoting State v. Mathis, 2020-Ohio-3068, ¶ 78 (6th Dist.) (“Because the state is not entitled to retry a criminal defendant after reversal for trial court error if the state failed in the first instance to present sufficient evidence . . . a defendant’s assigned error that the conviction is based on insufficient evidence is not moot under these circumstances.” (Internal quotations omitted for readability.)).

2025Group, L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-4989, ¶ 15 (“our judicial system relies on the principle of party presentation, and courts should ordinarily decide cases based on issues raised by the parties”); Hawley v. Ritley, 35 Ohio St.3d 157, 159 (1988) (“the court of appeals acted well within its discretion in overruling or disregarding the sixth assignment of error because [of] the lack of briefing on this assigned error” [emphasis added]), citing former App.R. 12(A). 12 January Term, 2025 {¶ 31} Because the appellant who has been granted a reopened appeal is the one who must “establish . . . the merits of bo

1992In addition, the Supreme Court of Ohio, in Hawley v. Ritley (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 157 , 519 N.E.2d 390 , established that the failure to separately brief and argue an assignment of error pursuant to App.R. 12(A) can result in the overruling of the particular unbriefed error. “ * * * In our view, the court of appeals acted well within its discretion in overruling or disregarding the sixth assignment of error because given the lack of briefing on this assigned error, the plain language of * * * [App.R. 12(A) ] permits such a disposition.

2026State v. Brewer, 2009-Ohio-593 , ¶ 7-8, citing State v. Brewer, 2007-Ohio-2079 ; Gideon at ¶ 28 . “‘Because “the state is not entitled to retry a criminal defendant after reversal for trial court error if the state failed in the first instance to present sufficient evidence . . . a defendant’s assigned error that the conviction is based on insufficient evidence is not moot under these circumstances.”’” Gideon at ¶ 27 , quoting State v. Mathis, 2020-Ohio-3068, ¶ 78 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Vanni, 2009-Ohio-2295 , ¶ 15 (9th Dist.). {¶ 23} “A sufficiency of the evidence argument disputes whe

2014State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386-387 , 678 N.E.2d 1 Casey does not specify the offense challenged in the assigned error.

2016See also State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 3743 (1989). {¶26} In the case at hand, Jones argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney “failed to object to the incomplete recitation of constitutional rights, and improper characterizations of Appellant, by the trial court.” We determined that the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 at Jones’s plea hearing; therefore, his first argument under this assigned error is without merit. {¶27} As to the alleged “improper characterizations,” the court stated the following at Jones’s sentencing hearing: That v

2015This assigned error lacks merit. {¶14} We review allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel under the two-prong analysis set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and adopted by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989).

2026“Plain error exists only in the ‘extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances’ where an unobjected-to error ‘seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process.’” Mikra LLC v. Taylor, 2025-Ohio-5630, ¶ 15, fn. 2 (8th Dist.), quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 122-123 (1997).

2011“In appeals of civil cases, the plain-error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” Goldfuss v. Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 , syllabus.

2026See, e.g., State v. Watson, 126 Ohio App.3d 316, 321-322 (12th Dist. 1998); Crawford at ¶ 15- 16 (overruling assignment of error where appellant "fails to cite to the record and does not offer any analysis of the assigned error"). {¶ 15} Appellate courts are neutral adjudicators, not advocates.

2013“An appellate court is not a performing bear, required to dance to each and every tune played on appeal.” State v. Watson, 126 Ohio App.3d 316, 321 , 710 N.E.2d 340 (12th Dist. 1998). {¶ 9} Upon review, Barry is left in the untenable position of having to formulate what he believes the assigned error to be and argue against it as perceived.