Court Opinion

ID: 9377362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 18:07:08.798517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:13.599260
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Poland v. Ohio Parole Bd., 2023-Ohio-694.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                    RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

KENNETH POLAND                                           JUDGES:
                                                         Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellant                              Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                                         Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs-
                                                         Case No. 22 CA 0065
OHIO PAROLE BOARD

        Defendant-Appellee                               OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                              Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas,
                                                      Case No. 22 CV 177

JUDGMENT:                                             Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                               March 7, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellant                               For Defendant-Appellee

KENNETH POLAND                                        DAVID YOST
PRO SE                                                OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL
Richland Correctional Institution                     MARCY A. VONDERWELL
P. O. Box 8107                                        D. CHADD McKITRICK
Mansfield, Ohio 44901                                 SR. ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL
                                                      30 East Broad Street, 23rd Floor
                                                      Columbus, Ohio 43215-3428
Richland County, Case No. 22 CA 0065                                                   2

Wise, J.

       {¶1}   Appellant Kenneth Poland appeals from the August 24, 2022, Judgment

Entry by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is the Ohio Parole Board.

The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.

                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶2}   On September 17, 1996, a jury convicted Appellant of one count of Murder

in violation of R.C. §2903.02 for beating his victim to death with a hammer.

       {¶3}   On September 20, 1996, he was sentenced to fifteen years to life in prison.

       {¶4}   On April 10, 2006, Appellant had his first parole hearing. Appellee denied

parole.

       {¶5}   On July 25, 2014, Appellee held an additional parole hearing. Appellee

found Appellant engaged in serious institutional misconduct, and parole was denied.

       {¶6}   On July 19, 2017, Appellee held a third parole hearing for Appellant.

Appellee denied parole.

       {¶7}   On June 18, 2018, Appellee held a fourth parole hearing. Appellee denied

parole.

       {¶8}   On April 25, 2022, Appellant filed a complaint seeking a declaratory

judgment by the trial court stating:

              (1)    DECLARE THAT THE PAROLE BOARD DENIED POLAND

       MEANINGFUL CONSIDERATION FOR PAROLE RELEASE WHEN IT

       IMPOSED MORE THAN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE INTIAL (sic) PAROLE

       HEARING;
Richland County, Case No. 22 CA 0065                                       3

            (2)   DECLARE THAT THE PAROLE BOARD’S (sic) FAILED TO

      ADHERE      TO   THE     CORRECT       VERSIONS   OF    THE   OHIO

      ADMINISTRATION CODE RULES IN EXISTENCE UNDER R.C. 5120.01

      [DIRECTOR’S SIGNATORY AUTHORITY] ON 20-JUN-96 ‘DATE OF

      OFFENSE’ WHEN IMPOSING 3 ½ YEARS MORE THAN PERMISSIBLE;

            (3)   DECLARE THAT THE PAROLE BOARD’S FAILURE TO

      PROVIDE HALF-TIME-REVIEW HEARING NOT LATER THAN 2 ½

      YEARS AFTER POLAND’S 2006 INITIAL HEARING WAIVED THE

      PAROLE      BOARD’S     AUTHORITY      OVER    POLAND’S   PAROLE

      ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATION; SEE AR 5120:1-1-20(D)(1);

            (4)   DECLARE THAT THE PAROLE BOARD VIOLATES THE

      ‘SEPARATION OF POWERS’ WHEN CONDUCTING FRAUDULENT

      PAROLE HEARINGS FOR POLAND, A PRE:1-JUL-96 OFFENDER

      PROTECTED UNDER R.C. 5120.021(A);

            (5)   DECLARE THAT THE PAROLE BOARD ENGAGES IN

      CRIMINAL     ACTS      AGAINST   ALL     PRE:1-JUL-96   PAROLABLE

      OFFENDERS AT ALL FRAUDULENT PAROLE HEARINGS SINCE 1993

      AFTER THE SOCF RIOT, VIOLATING R.C. 5120.021(A);

            (6)   DECLARE THAT THE PAROLE BOARD DENIES EQUAL

      PROTECTION LAWS UNDER R.C. 5120.021(A) WHEN IT IMPOSES

      DISPROPORTIONATE TREATMENT ON POLAND, A PRE:1-JUL-

      5120.021(A) WHEN IT IMPOSES DISPROPORTIONATE TREATMENTON
Richland County, Case No. 22 CA 0065                                  4

      POLAND, A PRE: 1-JUL-96 OFFENDER, WHILE THE PAROLE BOARD

      ACTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY;

            (7)    DECLARE THE PAROLE BOARD HAS VIOLATED THE

      PRE: 1-JUL-96 EX POST FACTO LAWS GOVERNING ALL PRE:1-JUL-96

      OFFENDERS DESCRIBED UNDER R.C. 5120.021(A);

            (8)    DECLARE    THAT     THE   BOARD   INTENTIONALLY

      DISCRIMINATED AGAINST POLAND BY ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE

      OF ITS AUTHORITY AND THEREBY WAIVING THEIR AUTHORITY

      OVER POLAND’S RELEASE DECISION MAKING;

            (9)    DECLARE THAT THE PAROLE BOARD’S FAILURE TO

      FOLLOW ONLY THE PRE:1-JUL-96 RELEASING REGULATIONS, AS

      REQUIRED BY R.C. 5120.021(A), AND VIOLATED POLAND’S CIVIL AND

      CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS;

            (10)   DECLARE THAT THE PAROLE BOARD’S FAILURE TO

      FOLLOW THE PRE: 1-JUL-96 RELEASING REGULATIONS WHEN IT

      INTENTIONALLY INFLICTION (sic) OF EXTREME EMOTIONAL STRESS

      UPON POLAND AND HIS ENTIRE FAMILY;

            (11)   DECLARE THAT THE PAROLE BOARD’S FAILURE TO

      FOLLOW AND APPLY THE PROPER RELEASING REGULATIONS

      CAUSED OHIO’S JUDICIARY TO COVER UP THE MALFEASANCE,

      MISFEASANCE, AND NON-FEASANCE OF THE PAROLE BOARD IN

      MULTIPLE CIVIL CASES BEGINNING WITH LAYNE V. OAPA, 2002 OHIO
Richland County, Case No. 22 CA 0065                                5

      LEXIS 3054 AND CONTINUING ON TO DATE TO HIDE SERIOUS

      MISCONDUCT;

            (12)   DECLARE THAT RECKLESS INTENT IS INFERRED WHEN

      CONDUCT IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF DUTIES AND ARE

      CONDUCTED IN BAD FAITH;

            (13)   DECLARE THAT THE LACK OF ‘SIGNATORY AUTHORITY’

      ON THE ‘DECISION SHEETS’ ISSUED TO POLAND DOES NOT

      AUTHORIZE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD MEMBERS AND IS

      FRAUD, WHERE THE CHAIR PRESENTS ITS SIGNATURE BY SIGNING

      A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER ONLY TO PROVIDE A FALSE

      APPEARANCE OF LEGITIMACY UNDER FALSE PRETENSES;

            (14)   DECLARE THAT USING THE DECISION SHEET FORM TO

      WRITE THEIR DECISIONS, ON A FORM THAT IS NOT SIGNED BY THE

      PAROLE BOARD MEMBERS WHOM CONDUCTED ALL OF POLAND’S

      HEARINGS, AND SAID DECISION SHEET FORM DID NOT EXIST UNTIL

      AFTER 20-JUNE-96 WHEN ONLY THE FORM IN CIRCULATION ON 20-

      JUN-96 CAN BE USED FOR ALL HEARINGS;

            (15)   DECLARE THAT A PAROLE BOARD DECISION SHEET

      USED FOR POLAND’S DECISION THAT IS ABSENT THE ‘SIGNATORY

      AUTHORITY’ OF THOSE MEMBERS WHO CONDUCTED POLAND’S

      RELEASE HEARING IS VOID AND FRAUDULENT;

            (16)   DECLARE THAT THE 2022 OHIO PAROLE BOARD

      HANDBOOK AND ALL OTHERS BEFORE IT, IS UNAUTHORIZED
Richland County, Case No. 22 CA 0065                                   6

      BECAUSE IT IS NOT SIGNED INTO LAW VIA R.C. 5120.01 BY THE

      DIRECTOR OF THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND

      CORRECTION ON OR BEFORE POLAND’S DATE OF OFFENSE IN 1996;

            (17)   DECLARE THAT PAGE 3, RELEVANT PAGE ATTACHED,

      OF THE OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER’S ‘SIGNATORY AUTHORITY’ FOR

      ITS PREPARATION OR CIRCULATION AND IS HENCE, CLASSIFIED A

      ‘CRIMINAL TOOL’ DESIGNED TO HIDE PAROLE BOARD CRIMINAL

      ACTS COMMITTED AGAINST THE R.C. 5120.021(A) OFFENDERS’

            (18)   DECLARE THAT APPLYING THE 2003 MANDATORY

      VERSION OF AR 5120:1-1-07(A) TO POLAND’S PAROLE DECISION

      SHEET(S) IS ILLEGAL, BECAUSE HIS 20-JUN-96 DATE OF OFFENSE

      PRE-DATES 2003; AND THE DIFFERENT DECISION SHEET FORMS

      USED IN 2006, 2014, 2017, AND 2020 DID NOT EXIST ON 20-JUN-96;

            (19)   DECLARE THAT ALL OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE

      BOARD AT ALL OF POLAND’S HEARINGS RESULTED IN ACTS TAKEN

      OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PAROLE BOARD’S AUTHORITY. SEE

      R.C. 109.362;

            (20)   DECLARE THAT WHEN THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO

      CONDUCT THE MANDATORY ‘HALF-TIME’ REVIEW HEARING IN HALF

      OF THE LEGAL 5-YEARS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED IN

      2006, PURSUANT TO AR 5120:1-1-20(D)(1), DEPICTS THAT THE

      DEFENDANT       WAIVED   THEIR   AUTHORITY/JURISDICTION   OVER

      POLAND FOREVER; SEE 1982 OHIO APP. LEXIS 12491;
Richland County, Case No. 22 CA 0065                                 7

            (21)   DECLARE THAT WHEN THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO

      RELEASE POLAND AT HIS SECOND HEARING, THAT SHOULD HAVE

      OCCURRED NOT LATER THAN 2011, PURSUANT TO AR 5120:1-1-

      10(B), EFF. 1988 INSTEAD OF 2014, THAT POLAND HAS BEEN HELD

      WRONGFULLY IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE

      14TH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SINCE 2011;

            (22)   DECLARE THAT R.C. 2967.03 [CLEMENCY DISCRETION]

      DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE INMATES WHOSE MINIMUM SENTENCE

      TO PAROLE ELIGIBILITY HAS EXPIRED, BUT ONLY APPLIES TO A

      PAROLE ELIGIBLE OFFENDER WHO FILES AN [APPLICATION FOR

      CLEMENCY] AND HAS NOT COMPLETED THEIR MINIMUM SENTENCE

      TO PAROLE ELIGIBILITY;

            (23)   DECLARE THAT THE 1998 VERSION OF AR 5120:1-1-

      10(B)(2) DOES NOT APPLY TO POLAND, OR ANY OTHER OFFENDER

      WHO COMMITTED THEIR OFFENSE PRIOR TO 1-JUL-96;

            (24)   DECLARE      THAT   THE   PAROLE     RELEASING

      REGULATIONS WAS VIOLATED WHEN THE BOARD FAILED TO

      ‘ORIENT POLAND TOWARD RELEASE’, AND DENIED POLAND THE

      ENTITLEMENT TO RELEASE UNDER SUPERVISION WHERE THE

      ‘RETURN TO CONFINEMENT FOR THOSE WHO VIOLATE THE TERMS

      AND CONDITIONS OF THEIR RELEASE AND ARE UNWILLING OR

      UNABLE TO READJUST SATISFACTORILY UNDER SUPERVISION, AR

      5120:1-1-02(D), EFF. 2-JAN-79;
Richland County, Case No. 22 CA 0065                                 8

            (25)     DECLARE THAT WHEN POLAND’S MINIMUM SENTENCE

      EXPIRED IN 2006, AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, POLAND’S ‘DEBT TO

      SOCIETY HAS BEEN PAID’, 1991 U.S APP. LEXIS 4822, HN7-8,

      INVOKING THE LIMITED AUTHORITY OF THE PAROLE BOARD UNDER

      AR 5120:1-1-10(b), EFF. 2-JAN-79;

            (26)     DECLARE THAT THE BOARD VIOLATED AR 5120:1-1-

      02(G), AS IT EXISTED ON 20-JUN-96, CONSTITUTING AN ‘ABUSE OF

      DISCRETION’ WHEN THE BOARD ACTS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF

      ITS AUTHORITY AS OHIO’S PAROLE RELEASING LAWS APPLY TO

      POLAND’S TRIAL COURT IMPOSED SENTENCE;

            (27)     DECLARE THAT THE PAROLE BOARD VIOLATED AR

      5120:1-1-02(B) WHEN IT CONSIDERED ‘COMMUNITY OPPOSITION’ TO

      POLAND’S RELEASE WHEN THE “DIVISION OF PAROLE AND

      COMMUNITY SERVICE IS FREE FROM IMPROPER CONTROL OR

      INFLUENCE, POLITICAL OR OTHERWISE”;

            (28)     DECLARE THAT SINCE 2011 THE PAROLE BOARD HAS

      WRONGFULLY INCARCERATED POLAND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRE:

      1-JUN-96 RELEASING REGULATIONS AS PROTECTED BY R.C

      5120.021(A);

            (29)     DECLARE THAT BY FAILING TO TREAT POLAND, AND

      ALL R.C. 5120.021(A) OFFENDERS WITH FAIRNESS AND EQUITY AS

      REQUIRED, PURSUANT TO AR 5120:1-1-02G), THAT THE PAROLE

      BOARD VIOLATED POLAND’S CIVIL & CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS’
Richland County, Case No. 22 CA 0065                                                    9

             (30)    DECLARE THAT WHEN THE PAROLE BOARD APPLIES

      THE 1-APR-05 VERSION OF AR 5120:1-1-11) FAILS TO PROVIDE

      POLAND WITH THE IN-PERSON HEARING THE LAW REQUIRES) IT

      VIOLATED POLAND’S CIVIL RIGHTS BY CONDUCTING ILLEGAL

      TELECOMMUNICATION VIDEO HEARING, AND CAUSING POLAND TO

      BE DETERMINED FOR RELEASE BY A FULL BOARD PANEL, UNDER

      THE POST 1-JUL-86 VERSION OF AR 5120:1-1-08 THAT IS BARRED BY

      R.C. 5120.021(A);

             (31)    DECLARE THAT WHEN THE PAROLE BOARD MAINTAINS

      IMPROPER CONTROL OR INFLUENCE OVER THE R.C. 5120.021(A)

      OFFENDER, THEY VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS WHEN THEY PERMIT ANY

      ‘OPPOSITION’ TO RELEASE POLITICAL OR OTHERWISE BY THE

      VICTIM(S), THE COMMUNITY, OR ANYONE ELSE; SEE AR 5120:1-1-

      02(B)[.]

      {¶9}   Complaint pp 1-3.

      {¶10} On May 23, 2022, Appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).

      {¶11} On June 9, 2022, Appellant filed a Motion for Leave of Court for a

Continuance. The motion was granted.

      {¶12} On July 1, 2022, Appellant filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Appellee’s

Motion to Dismiss.

      {¶13} On July 14, 2022, Appelle filed a Reply.

      {¶14} On August 24, 2022, the trial court granted Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss.
Richland County, Case No. 22 CA 0065                                                    10

                                  ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

       {¶15} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He herein raises the following

Assignments of Error:

       {¶16} “I.   THE    TRIAL     COURT       JUDGE      DELIBERATELY        VIOLATED

APPELLANT’S OHIO AND FEDERAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH

AND FOURTEENTH AMENMENTS [sic] OF THE OHIO AND UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTIONS WHEN IT ACTED TO PROTECT A PLETHORA OF OTHER JUDGES

WHOM ARE ENGAGED IN A PATTERN OF CORRUPT ACTITIVIES [sic] AGAINST

APPELLANT, AND THOUSANDS OF OTHER INMATES DEFINED AS R.C [sic]

5120.021(A), WHEN IT GRANTED APPELLEE’S UNLAWFUL MOTION TO DISMISS

BASED ON LIES PRESENTED BY THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND IGNORED

THE VIOLATION OF R.C. 109.362.”

                                                I.

       {¶17} In Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error, Appellant appears to argue three

issues: the trial court erred by failing to find the Ohio Parole Board inappropriately used

post July 1, 1996, parole procedures when he was convicted prior to July 1, 1996, the

trial court erred when finding Appellant’s Memorandum in Opposition to Appellee’s Motion

to Dismiss was untimely, and the trial court erred by not addressing Appellant’s Civ.R.

10(D) exhibits attached to the complaint.

                                      Standard of Review

       {¶18} This Court reviews judgments on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under a de novo standard.

Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 228, 229, 551
Richland County, Case No. 22 CA 0065                                                      11

N.E.2d 981; Perrysburg Twp. V. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79, 2004-Ohio-4362, 814

N.E.2d 44, ¶5. A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted is procedural and tests the sufficiency of the complaint. State ex rel.

Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. Of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 548, 605 N.E.2d 378

(1992), citing Assn. for the Defense of the Washington Local School Dist. v. Kiger, 42

Ohio St.3d 116, 117, 537 N.E.2d 1292 (1989). In considering a motion to dismiss, a trial

court may not rely on allegations or evidence outside of the complaint. State ex rel. Fuqua

v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206, 207, 680 N.E.2d 985 (1997). Rather, the trial court may

review only the complaint and may dismiss the case only if it appears beyond a doubt the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling the plaintiff to recover. O’Brien v. Univ.

Community Tenants Union, Inc. 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975), syllabus.

Unsupported conclusions of a complaint are not sufficient to withstand a motion to

dismiss. Schulman v. Cleveland (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 196, 198, 59 O.O.2d 196, 197,

283 N.E.2d 175, 176.

                     a. Application of post-July 1, 1996 parole procedures.

       {¶19} Appellant appears to be arguing the trial court erred by failing to find R.C.

§5120.021 prohibited the use of parole procedures developed after July 1, 1996 to those

incarcerated prior to July 1, 1996. We disagree.

       {¶20} R.C. §5120.021 states:

              (A)    The provisions of chapter 5120. of the Revised Code, as they

       existed prior to July 1, 1996, and that address the duration or potential

       duration of incarceration or parole or other forms of supervised release,

       apply to all persons upon whom a court imposed a term of imprisonment
Richland County, Case No. 22 CA 0065                                                    12

      prior to July 1, 1996, and all persons upon whom a court, on or after July 1,

      1996, and in accordance with law existing prior to July 1, 1996, imposed a

      term of imprisonment for an offense that was committed prior to July 1,

      1996.

              (B)    (1) The provisions of Chapter 5120. of the Revised Code, as

      they exist on or after July 1, 1996, and that address the duration or potential

      duration of incarceration or supervised release, apply to all persons upon

      whom a court imposed a stated prison term for an offense committed on or

      after July 1, 1996.

              (2) The provisions of Chapter 5120. of the Revised Code, as they

      exist on or after the effective date of this amendment, apply to an offender

      who is released from confinement in a state correctional institution on or

      after that date.

              (C) Nothing in this section limits or affects the applicability of any

      provision in Chapter 5120. of the Revised Code, as amended or enacted on

      or after July 1, 1996, that pertains to an issue other than the duration or

      potential duration of incarceration or supervised release, to persons in

      custody or under the supervision of the department of rehabilitation or

      correction.

      {¶21} The language of the statute is clear. R.C. §5120.021 only effects sentencing

duration. It does not impact the parole procedures or guidelines.
Richland County, Case No. 22 CA 0065                                                        13

       {¶22} Additionally, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a prisoner has no right to

rely on the parole guidelines in effect prior to his parole hearing date. State ex rel. Bealler

v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 36, 740 N.E.2d 1100.

       {¶23} Accordingly, Appellant’s first issue is not well taken.

       b. The trial court erred when finding Appellant’s July 1, 2022 Memorandum
            in Opposition to Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss was untimely filed.

       {¶24} Appellant argues the trial court erred by claiming his response to Appellee’s

Motion to Dismiss was not timely filed.

       {¶25} However, a review of the record shows that according to the trial court’s

August 24, 2022 judgment entry, Appellant’s response to Appellee’s Motion to dismiss

was filed on July 1, 2022, and was considered by the trial court.

       {¶26} Accordingly, Appellant’s second issue is not well taken.

                    c. The trial court erred by not addressing Appellant’s
                       Civ.R. 10(D) Exhibits attached to the Complaint.

       {¶27} Civ.R. 10(D)(1) states: “Account or Written Instrument. When any claim or

defense is founded on an account or other written instrument, a copy of the account or

written instrument must be attached to the pleading. If the account or written instrument

is not attached, the reason for the omission must be stated in writing.” This rule is to

ensure the Defendant is put on adequate notice of the complaint. The rule makes no

mention of a trial court’s requirement to address such attachments.

       {¶28} Appellant does not cite any statutory, case law, rules of civil procedure, or

learned treatise from this or any other jurisdiction to support the proposition that the trial

court must address Civ.R. 10(D) Exhibits in a judgment entry. Accordingly, Appellant’s

brief does not comply with App.R. 16(A)(7), which provides,
Richland County, Case No. 22 CA 0065                                                        14

              The appellant shall include in its brief, under the headings and in the

       order indicated all of the following * * * An 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. The argument may be preceded by a summary.

       {¶29} “If an argument exists that can support [an] assignment of error, it is not this

court’s duty to root it out.” Thomas v. Harmon, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 08CA17, 2009-

Ohio-3299, ¶14, quoting State v. Carmen, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90512, 2008-Ohio-

4368, ¶31. “It is not the function of this court to construct a foundation for [an appellant’s]

claims; failure to comply with the rules governing practice in the appellate courts is a tactic

which is ordinarily fatal.” Catanzarite v. Boswell, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24184, 2009-Ohio-

1211, ¶16, quoting Kremer v. Cox, 114 Ohio App.3d 41, 60, 682 N.E.2d 1006 (9th

Dist.1996).

       {¶30} An appellate court may rely upon App.R. 12(A) in overruling or disregarding

an assignment of error because of “the lack of briefing” on the assignment of error. Hawley

v. Ritley, 35 Ohio St.3d 157, 159, 519 N.E.2d 390, 392-393 (1988); Abon, Ltd. v.

Transcontinental Ins. Co., 5th Dist. Richland No 2004-CA-0029, 2005-Ohio-3052, ¶100;

State v. Miller, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 04-COA-003, 2004-Ohio-4636, ¶41.

       {¶31} Appellant has not supported his general argument with citations to authority.

Appellant’s argument has failed to cite statutes, case law, rules of civil procedure, or

learned treatises, and apply the facts of the case to the legal authority. Consequently, we
Richland County, Case No. 22 CA 0065                                                 15

find that Appellant has not presented an argument, but relies only upon the assertion of

error and unsupported accusations. Thus, we disregard this issue.

      {¶32} Accordingly, Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled.

      {¶33} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of

Richland County, Ohio, is hereby, affirmed.

By: Wise, J.

Gwin, P. J., and

Delaney, J., concur.

JWW/br 0303