[Cite as Deckard v. Greene Cty. Animal Control, 2016-Ohio-7981.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

GREENE COUNTY 

ELIJAH DECKARD 

Plaintiff-Appellant 

v. 

GREENE COUNTY ANIMAL 

CONTROL 

Defendant-Appellee

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

C.A. CASE NO. 2016-CA-8 

T.C. NO. CVH1501508 

(Civil appeal from 

 Municipal Court) 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N 

Rendered on the ____2nd___ day of _____December_____, 2016. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

ELIJAH DECKARD, 4054 Lyndell Drive, Beavercreek, Ohio 45434 

Plaintiff-Appellant 

 

BETSY A. DEEDS, Atty. Reg. No. 0076747, 510 West Main Street, Fairborn, Ohio 45324 

 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 

DONOVAN, P.J. 

{¶ 1} This matter is before the Court on the pro se Notice of Appeal of Elijah 

Deckard, filed February 22, 2016. Deckard appeals from the January 29, 2016 decision 

of the Municipal Court of Fairborn Civil/Small Claims Division finding that Deckard’s dog, 

Ivan, is a dangerous dog. We hereby affirm the judgment of the trial court. 
-2- 

{¶ 2} On November 2, 2015, notification from Greene County Animal Control 

(“GCAC”) was issued to Deckard that provides that the issuing officer had probable cause 

to believe that Deckard’s dog is a dangerous dog. The notice provides: “Your dog is 

deemed a Dangerous Dog – as defined in Ohio Revised Code 955.11(1) as a dog that 

without provocation has caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any person, 

or has killed another dog, or has been the subject of a third or subsequent violation of 

955.22(c) of the Revised Code.” 

{¶ 3} On January 14, 2016, the court issued a judgment entry that provides that 

the “matter came before the Court for trial/hearing on Petitioner’s Appeal of his dog’s 

designation.” The entry provides that the court continued the hearing to January 28, 

2016. 

{¶ 4} On January 29, 2016 the municipal court issued an Entry that provides: 

This matter came before the Court upon the Petitioner’s request for 

hearing to dispute the designation of the owner’s dog as a dangerous dog 

by the Greene County Animal Control. Present in court were petitioner 

Elijah Deckard and prosecutor Betsy Deeds on behalf of Respondent. 

Based upon the evidence presented, the Court hereby finds that the 

Respondent has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the dog, 

Ivan, a Rottweiler breed male dog, has been the subject of a Third or 

Subsequent violation of Failure to Confine/Control a dog. As such, the 

Court hereby finds that the dog is a dangerous dog as defined in Ohio 

Revised Code § 955.11. 

Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 955.22, petitioner as the owner of 
-3- 

the dog is required to confine the dog in a locked pen with a covered top or 

locked fence yard while on the premises, to have the dog on a leash or 

chain leash no more than six (6) feet, or muzzled while off the premises, to 

obtain liability insurance, annually register the dog with the county auditor, 

have the dog vaccinated for rabies and have him neutered, have a clear 

“dangerous dog” sign posted on the premises, have a permanent microchip 

inserted in the dog, keep a special “dangerous dog” tag on his dog collar, 

notify the dog warden if the dog is loose or bites a person or attacks another 

dog, petitioner may not debark the dog and must notify the auditor within 

ten (10) days of any sale, transfer, or death of the dog. 

{¶ 5} Deckard asserts two assignments of error herein, which we will consider 

together. They are as follows: 

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN 

CONVICTING APPELLANT AS APPELLANT WAS DENIED ASSISTANCE 

OF COUNSEL TO SHOW APPELLANT[’]S PERFORMING OF DUE 

DILIGENCE TO CONTAIN SAID ANIMAL. 

And, 

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN 

DENYING APPELLANT[’]S EVIDENCE IN APPELLANT[’]S DEFENSE TO 

SHOW DUE DILIGENCE OF ANIMAL CONTAINMENT. 

{¶ 6} In his brief, Deckard appears to argue that someone trespassed on his 

property and released his dog from proper confinement, and that accordingly the 

designation of the dog as dangerous is erroneous. GCAC responds that the “trial court 
-4- 

was bound by statute and required to follow R.C. 955.11 in determining that PlaintiffAppellant’s dog is dangerous. As such, the evidence of at least three prior convictions 

for violations of R.C. 955.22(C) mandated the trial court’s finding.” 

{¶ 7} We initially note that a transcript of the proceedings below is not part of the 

record before us. In the absence of a transcript, “we must presume the regularity and 

validity of the trial court’s proceedings * * *. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 

Ohio St.2d 197 * * *.” City of Dayton v. Davis, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 17941, 2001 WL 

28664, * 5 (Jan. 12, 2001). 

{¶ 8} We further note that R.C. 955.11(A)(1)(a)(iii) defines a dangerous dog as “a 

dog that, without provocation * * * has * * * [b]een the subject of a third or subsequent 

violation of division (C) of section 955.22 of the Revised Code.” R.C. 955.22 provides: 

(C) Except when a dog is lawfully engaged in hunting and 

accompanied by the owner, keeper, harborer, or handler of the dog, no 

owner, keeper, or harborer of any dog shall fail at any time to do either of 

the following: 

(1) Keep the dog physically confined or restrained upon the premises 

of the owner, keeper, or harborer by a leash, tether, adequate fence, 

supervision, or secure enclosure to prevent escape; 

(2) Keep the dog under the reasonable control of some person. 

{¶ 9} The record before us contains evidence that Deckard’s dog has been the 

subject of three prior convictions of R.C. 955.22(C), namely in Kettering Municipal Court 

in December of 2013, in Xenia Municipal Court in March of 2015, and in Fairborn 

Municipal Court in January of 2016. This is sufficient to designate Ivan a dangerous dog. 
-5- 

The law does not require evidence that Ivan bit a human or another dog. Furthermore, 

it is too late to challenge these underlying convictions. 

{¶ 10} Presuming the regularity of the proceedings before the municipal court, and 

for the reasons set forth herein, Deckard’s assigned errors are overruled, and the 

judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

. . . . . . . . . . 

FAIN, J. and FROELICH, J., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 

Elijah Deckard 

Betsy A. Deeds 

Hon. Beth W. Cappelli