[Cite as State v. Parker, 2021-Ohio-3422.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio, : 

 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 Case No. 20AP-527

v. : (C.P.C. No. 19CR-5587) 

 

Kenneth Parker, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellant, : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on September 28, 2021 

 

On brief: [G. Gary Tyack] Prosecuting Attorney and Mark R. 

Wilson, for plaintiff-appellee. Argued: Mark R. Wilson. 

On brief: Kenneth Parker, defendant-appellant, pro se. 

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

PER CURIAM 

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Kenneth Parker, also known as Kaisan-Pamir:Bey, 

Kaisan Pamir Bey, Kaisan Pamir XI Aniyunwiah Bey, or Kaisan El Pamir XI Aniyunwiya 

Bey ("Parker"), appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

convicting him of nonsupport of a dependent, imposing three years of community control, 

and ordering him to pay a child support arrearage. For the following reasons we affirm the 

judgment of the trial court. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 2} Parker is the father of a child, K.D.P., born in 2016. In October 2019, Parker 

was indicted on one count of nonsupport of dependents, a fifth-degree felony violation of 

R.C. 2919.21. The indictment alleged that between February and October 2019, Parker 

abandoned or failed to provide adequate support to K.D.P., as he was required to do by a 
No. 20AP-527 2 

court order or decree, for a total of 26 weeks out of 104 consecutive weeks. Parker, acting 

pro se, filed multiple pretrial motions, including a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence 

and a motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29(A). The trial court denied 

Parker's motion to dismiss for lack of evidence, finding it was premature because the trial 

had not been conducted and there was no equivalent to a motion for summary judgment in 

criminal proceedings. The motion for judgment of acquittal was filed 3 days before the jury 

trial commenced and the trial court did not issue a written ruling on it prior to trial. 

{¶ 3} Following a multi-day trial, a jury convicted Parker of nonsupport of his 

dependent. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Parker to three years of 

community control and ordered him to pay a child support arrearage of $25,665.67. Parker 

timely appealed from the sentencing entry. 

II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶ 4} Parker, pro se, assigns the following as trial court error: 

[1.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the 

defendant-Appellant in dismissing the appellant's action by 

prejudice of defendant in overruling the defendant's motion 

for Judgement [sic] of Acquittal made at the close of the 

Plaintiff's case[.] 

[2.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the 

prejudice of Defendant-Appellant, in admitting the States 

administrative order to compel payment to the FCCSEA. 

[3.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the 

prejudice of Defendant-Appellant in overruling the 

Defendant's request for disclosure of all prima facie binding 

contracts and documents[.] 

[4.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the 

prejudice of defendant-in-Appellant [sic] in overruling 

defendant's request for the State to furnish sufficient evidence 

essentially to establish the case is indeed a tort or criminal case. 

[5.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the 

defendant-Appellant in suppressing, then omitting, the 

defendant's witness's testimony[.] 

[6.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the 

defendant-Appellant in dismissing the appellant's action by 

prejudice of defendant in overruling the defendant's request for 

the State to adhere to the U.S. Constitution[.] 

[7.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the 

defendant-Appellant in compelling the defendant to a private 
No. 20AP-527 3 

entities(FCCSEA), arbitrary Rules and Regulations subsequent 

to Ohio Revised Code. 

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

{¶ 5} As an initial matter, we note Parker has failed to file a complete transcript of 

the jury trial proceedings. He filed a supplemental record on April 22, 2021, consisting of 

a 19-page excerpt of the proceedings containing a portion of the voir dire of Kerrick Lamont 

Jackson ("Jackson"). Other than this limited excerpt, however, we lack a transcript of the 

proceedings in the trial court. 

{¶ 6} "The burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal rests with the 

party asserting error." Lundeen v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-629, 2013-

Ohio-112, ¶ 16. As the appellant in this case, Parker "bears the burden of showing error by 

reference to matters in the record." Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 

199 (1980). "Pursuant to App.R. 9, an appellant must submit to the court of appeals a 

transcript of the trial court proceedings deemed necessary for appellate review" or an 

alternative statement under App.R. 9(C) or (D). J.J. v. Kilgore, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-401, 

2021-Ohio-928, ¶ 17. "When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned 

errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, 

as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower 

court's proceedings, and affirm." Knapp at 199. To the extent Parker alleges error in the 

trial proceedings, because he has not filed a transcript we have no basis to review the 

asserted errors and must presume the regularity of the trial court proceedings. 

{¶ 7} Additionally, under App.R. 12(A)(2), an appellate court may "disregard an 

assignment of error presented for review if the party raising it fails to identify in the record 

the error on which the assignment of error is based[.]" With the exception of his fifth 

assignment of error, which relates to Jackson's testimony, Parker's brief on appeal fails to 

identify in the record the grounds for his claims of error by the trial court. 

{¶ 8} Despite Parker's failure to provide a complete transcript of the trial 

proceedings or identify in the record the grounds for his claims of error, in the interest of 

justice we will review each of his assignments of error to determine whether we have an 

adequate basis to review the merits. 

{¶ 9} In his first assignment of error, Parker argues the trial court erred by denying 

his motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state's case-in-chief. Crim.R. 
No. 20AP-527 4 

29(A) authorizes a trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal if it finds the evidence 

insufficient to sustain a conviction on its own motion or in response to a defendant's motion 

"after the evidence on either side is closed." "Because a Crim.R. 29 motion questions the 

sufficiency of the evidence, '[w]e apply the same standard of review to Crim.R. 29 motions 

as we use in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence.' " State v. Brown, 10th Dist. No. 

15AP-935, 2016-Ohio-7944, ¶ 27, quoting State v. Hernandez, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-125, 

2009-Ohio-5128, ¶ 6. "Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the 

evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a verdict." State v. Cassell, 10th 

Dist. No. 08AP-1093, 2010-Ohio-1881, ¶ 36. In determining whether the evidence was 

sufficient to support a verdict, " '[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence 

in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the 

essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.' " State v. Robinson, 

124 Ohio St.3d 76, 2009-Ohio-5937, ¶ 34, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), 

paragraph two of the syllabus. 

{¶ 10} Absent a transcript of the trial proceedings, we cannot determine whether 

Parker moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A) at the close of the state's case-in-chief. If 

Parker made such a motion, the trial court must have denied it because the case proceeded 

to a jury verdict. As explained above, we review a Crim.R. 29 motion under the sufficiencyof-the-evidence standard. However, "without a transcript, we cannot review the sufficiency 

of the evidence." Allphase Restoration & Constr. v. Youngblood, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-75, 

2015-Ohio-4043, ¶ 30. Therefore, we lack a basis to review the merits of Parker's first 

assignment of error. To the extent Parker seeks to challenge the trial court's denial of his 

pretrial motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A), this Court has held that such a motion 

effectively seeks summary judgment and " 'the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure * * * do 

not allow for 'summary judgment' on an indictment prior to trial.' " State v. Shaw, 10th 

Dist. No. 02AP-1036, 2003-Ohio-2139, ¶ 13, quoting State v. Tipton, 135 Ohio App.3d 227, 

228 (9th Dist.1999). Therefore, we overrule Parker's first assignment of error. 

{¶ 11} Parker argues in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred by 

admitting into evidence an administrative order requiring him to make child support 

payments. " '[T]he admission or exclusion of relevant evidence rests within the sound 

discretion of the trial court.' " State v. Robb, 88 Ohio St.3d 59, 69 (2000), quoting State v. 

Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus. "Absent an abuse of 
No. 20AP-527 5 

discretion, as well as a showing that the accused has suffered material prejudice, an 

appellate court will not disturb the ruling of the trial court as to the admissibility of 

evidence." State v. Oteng, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-466, 2015-Ohio-1231, ¶ 31. An abuse of 

discretion " 'connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's 

attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.' " Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio 

St.3d 217, 219, quoting State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 (1980). Without a transcript 

of the trial proceedings, we cannot determine what was proffered as evidence, whether 

Parker objected to the admission of such evidence, and how the trial court may have ruled 

on any objection. Assuming for purposes of analysis that the trial court admitted an 

administrative order requiring child support payments, without a transcript, we must 

presume the validity of the trial court's decision. Accordingly, we overrule Parker's second 

assignment of error. 

{¶ 12} In his third assignment of error, Parker argues the trial court erred by 

overruling his request for disclosure of all binding contracts and documents. In his fourth 

assignment of error, Parker claims the trial court erred by overruling his request that the 

state furnish sufficient evidence to establish a criminal offense. Both these assignments of 

error effectively challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict. As 

explained above, "without a transcript, we cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence." 

Youngblood, 2015-Ohio-4043 at ¶ 30. Therefore, we overrule Parker's third and fourth 

assignments of error. 

{¶ 13} Parker alleges in his fifth assignment of error that the trial court abused its 

discretion by excluding witness testimony proffered in his defense. This appears to refer to 

testimony from Jackson. Although Parker has not filed a complete trial transcript, he filed 

a supplemental record containing the voir dire examination of Jackson. Parker's questions 

to Jackson during voir dire related to Jackson's experience with credit reports. These 

questions suggest Parker intended to proffer Jackson as an expert witness. 

{¶ 14} "A trial court's ruling as to the admission or exclusion of expert testimony is 

within its broad discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion." State 

v. Koss, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-970, 2014-Ohio-5042, ¶ 16. The transcript excerpt Parker has 

provided does not contain any ruling from the trial court on the admissibility of Jackson's 

testimony. Therefore, we do not know whether the trial court ultimately admitted or 

excluded Jackson as a witness. Even if the trial court excluded Jackson's testimony, without 
No. 20AP-527 6 

a record of the trial court's ruling we cannot determine whether the trial court abused its 

discretion. Accordingly, we overrule Parker's fifth assignment of error. 

{¶ 15} In his sixth assignment of error, Parker claims the trial court erred by 

overruling his request that the state adhere to the United States Constitution. In support 

of this assignment of error, Parker alleges his constitutional rights were deprived when he 

was forced to comply with the provisions of the Ohio Revised Code. The Supremacy Clause 

of the United States Constitution provides "[t]his Constitution * * * shall be the supreme 

Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the 

Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Constitution, 

Article VI, cl. 2. However, Parker fails to identify any provision of the Ohio Revised Code 

that conflicts with the United States Constitution or any constitutional right that was 

deprived in the trial proceeding. Therefore, we overrule Parker's sixth assignment of error. 

{¶ 16} Finally, in his seventh assignment of error, Parker alleges the trial court erred 

by compelling him to comply with the rules and regulations of the Franklin County Child 

Support Enforcement Agency. Parker's brief on appeal does not contain any argument 

related to this assignment of error. App.R. 16(A)(7) requires an appellant's brief to include 

"[a]n argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to each assignment 

of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations 

to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies." Under App.R. 

12(A)(2), we may "disregard an assignment of error presented for review if the party raising 

it * * * fails to argue the assignment separately in the brief, as required under App.R. 16(A)." 

Because Parker offers no argument to support his seventh assignment of error, we overrule 

it. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

{¶ 17} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule Parker's seven assignments of error 

and affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 

Judgment affirmed. 

BROWN, SADLER and MENTEL, JJ., concur. 

_____________