State v. Tate, Unpublished Decision (4-19-2002)
This text of State v. Tate, Unpublished Decision (4-19-2002) (State v. Tate, Unpublished Decision (4-19-2002)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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
In two assignments of error, appellant contends that, 1) his classification as an habitual sex offender was erroneous, and 2) the court should not have imposed a post-release notification requirement.
Appellant has not provided us with a transcript of his classification hearing. Since appellant asserts that the court's conclusions arising from this hearing were unfounded, the hearing record is necessary to our consideration of this appeal.
Absent an adequate record, we must presume the regularity of the trial court proceedings and the presence of sufficient evidence to support the court's conclusions. State v. Kelly (2001),
Accordingly, both of appellant's assignments or error are found not well-taken.
The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4, amended 1/1/98.
Melvin L. Resnick, J., Richard W. Knepper, J., Mark L. Pietrykowski,P.J., JUDGES CONCUR.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Tate, Unpublished Decision (4-19-2002), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tate-unpublished-decision-4-19-2002-ohioctapp-2002.