State v. Morris, Unpublished Decision (4-28-2006)
This text of 2006 Ohio 2129 (State v. Morris, Unpublished Decision (4-28-2006)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 2} Morris failed to provide a written or printed transcript of the proceedings below, providing instead only a videotape of the proceedings. App. R. 12(A)(1)(b) states that appellate review is confined in part to the record on appeal under App. R. 9(A). "When the transcript of proceedings is in the videotape medium, counsel shall type or print those portions of such transcript necessary for the court to determine the questions presented, certify their accuracy, and append such copy of the portions of the transcript to their briefs." App. R. 9(A). In the absence of a transcript, "we employ the presumption of regularity in the proceedings of the trial court." State v.Smith, Montgomery App. No. 20835,
{¶ 3} Assuming regularity in the trial court's proceedings, without reaching the merits of Morris' sole assignment of error, we will presume that the trial court held a full hearing and gave every party an opportunity to be heard on Morris' motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We will also presume that the trial court correctly determined that Morris "has simply had a change of heart * * * that does not result in a basis to withdraw his otherwise knowing and voluntary guilty plea." Judgment affirmed.
Wolff, J. and Fain, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2006 Ohio 2129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-morris-unpublished-decision-4-28-2006-ohioctapp-2006.