[Cite as State v. Zubaidah, 2018-Ohio-3420.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF LORAIN ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

KING AYETTEY ZUBAIDAH 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 17CA011207 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

LORAIN MUNICIPAL COURT 

COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO 

CASE No. 2013TRD04820 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: August 27, 2018 

 

HENSAL, Judge. 

{¶1} King Zubaidah appeals his convictions and sentences in the Lorain Municipal 

Court. For the following reasons, this Court affirms. 

I. 

{¶2} A Lorain police sergeant charged Mr. Zubaidah with four violations of the Lorain 

Codified Ordinances: operating a motor vehicle without a valid license, improper display of 

plates, fictitious plates, and failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer. 

Following a trial to the bench, the municipal court found him guilty of the first three offenses, 

fined him, and imposed a suspended jail sentence. Mr. Zubaidah has appealed, assigning six 

errors. For ease of consideration, we will address some of the assignments of error together. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I 

COURT FAIL[ED] TO ESTABLISH SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 
2 

 

{¶3} Mr. Zubaidah argues that the municipal court did not establish subject matter 

jurisdiction over his case. “Subject-matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to entertain and 

adjudicate a particular class of cases” and “is determined without regard to the rights of the 

individual parties involved in a particular case.” Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 

75, 2014-Ohio-4275, ¶ 19. Under Revised Code 1901.20(A)(1), a municipal court “has 

jurisdiction to hear misdemeanor cases committed within its territory and has jurisdiction over 

the violation of any ordinance of any municipal corporation within its territory * * *.” The 

Revised Code also provides that municipal courts “have jurisdiction within the corporate limits 

of their respective municipal corporations * * *.” R.C. 1901.02(A). In this case, the complaint 

alleged that Mr. Zubaidah committed the violations in the city of Lorain. All of them were 

misdemeanors. We, therefore, conclude that the Lorain Municipal Court had subject-matter 

jurisdiction over Mr. Zubaidah’s offenses. To the extent that Mr. Zubaidah is also contesting the 

court’s personal jurisdiction over him, Section 2901.11(A)(1) provides that “[a] person is subject 

to criminal prosecution and punishment in this state if * * * [t]he person commits an offense 

under the laws of this state, any element of which takes place in this state * * *.” State v. 

Mattingly, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 98CA0035, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 5539, *6-7 (Nov. 24, 1999). 

Mr. Zubaidah does not argue that he did not receive a proper summons under Criminal Rule 

4(A)(1). Compare id. at *7. Accordingly, upon review of the record, we conclude that the 

municipal court had personal jurisdiction over Mr. Zubaidah. Mr. Zubaidah’s first assignment of 

error is overruled. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II 

DUE PROCESS/PRACTICING LAW FROM BENCH 
3 

 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III 

OATH & BONDS 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV 

UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVITS 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V 

THEFT 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI 

RIGHT TO TRAVEL 

{¶4} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Zubaidah argues that the police sergeant 

who arrested him failed to advise him of his Miranda rights. He also argues that the municipal 

court judge who oversaw his case acted as if he was the prosecuting attorney. In his third 

assignment of error, Mr. Zubaidah argues that the sergeant who arrested him, the officer who 

searched his car, and the judge who tried his case violated their oaths of office. In his fourth 

assignment of error, Mr. Zubaidah argues that the affidavits he submitted in support of his 

defense were not rebutted and, therefore, were required to become the findings of the court. In 

his fifth assignment of error, Mr. Zubaidah argues that the municipal court judges who oversaw 

his case, the police sergeant, and a towing company colluded in order to steal his car. Finally, in 

his sixth assignment of error, Mr. Zubaidah argues that the municipal court deprived him of his 

right to travel. 

{¶5} This Court is unable to review the merits of Mr. Zubaidah’s arguments because 

the record does not contain a transcript of his bench trial or any of the other hearings conducted 

in this case. Under Local Rule 5(A)(1)(a)(i), “[i]f the appellant desires a transcript of 

proceedings to be prepared for inclusion in the record, the appellant must serve the court reporter 
4 

 

with a praecipe * * *.” We note that Mr. Zubaidah attempted to “order a Praecipe” in his Notice 

of Appeal to this Court. We informed Mr. Zubaidah on December 17, 2017, that his request was 

insufficient to constitute a praecipe under Local Rule 5(A)(1)(a)(i) because it was not signed by 

the court reporter. Upon review of the record, it does not appear that Mr. Zubaidah attempted to 

correct the defect. 

{¶6} “It is an appellant’s duty to ensure that the record, or the portion necessary for 

review on appeal, is filed with the appellate court.” Swedlow v. Riegler, 9th Dist. Summit No. 

26710, 2013-Ohio-5562, ¶ 14, quoting Shumate v. Shumate, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 09CA009707, 

2010-Ohio-5062, ¶ 6; App.R. 9(B). “[If] the transcript of a hearing is necessary to resolve 

assignments of error, but such transcript is missing from the record, the reviewing court has ‘no 

choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.’” Shumate at ¶ 

9, quoting Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980). 

{¶7} In light of Mr. Zubaidah’s failure to ensure the preparation of a transcript of the 

municipal court proceedings, we have no choice but to presume the regularity of those 

proceedings. Mr. Zubaidah’s second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments of error are 

overruled. 

III. 

{¶8} Mr. Zubaidah’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Lorain 

Municipal Court is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 
5 

 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Lorain Municipal 

Court, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 JENNIFER HENSAL 

 FOR THE COURT 

SCHAFER, P. J. 

CALLAHAN, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

KING AYETTEY ZUBAIDAH, pro se, Appellant. 

PATRICK D. RILEY and JOSEPH T. LAVECK, Attorneys at Law, for Appellee.