 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ebright4/15/1988
l shall type or print those portions of such transcript necessary for the court to determine the questions presented and append such copy of the portions of the transcripts to their briefs." It is incumbent upon appellant to transcribe and append to his brief the necessary portions of the videotape to demonstrate his second assignment of error. See Lorain v. Robertson (1984), 21 Ohio App.3d 93, 21 OBR 99, 487 N.E.2d 317, and Bantel v. Herbert (1987), 31 Ohio App.3d 167, 31 OBR 332, 509 N.E.2d 981. Accordingly, this court has nothing to pass upon as to the second assigned error and, therefore, has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings. See In re Adoption of Foster (1985), 22 Ohio App.3d 129, 22 OBR 331, 489 N.E.2d 1070, and Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 15 O.O. 3d 218, 400 N.E.2d 384.
Accordingly, we find appellant's second assignment of error not well-taken.
On consideration whereof, the court finds that the defendant was not prejudiced or prevented from having a fair trial, and the judgment of the Port Clinton Municipal Court is affirmed. This cause is remanded to said court for execution of judgment. It is ordered that appellant pay the court costs of this appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
RESNICK, P.J., HANDWORK and GLASSER, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|