Court Opinion

ID: 9397033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 14:08:38.929119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.910749
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Roper, 2023-Ohio-1738.]

STATE OF OHIO                     )                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                  )ss:                NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT                  )

STATE OF OHIO                                         C.A. No.      30129

          Appellee

          v.                                          APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                      ENTERED IN THE
STACEY E. ROPER                                       COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                      COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
          Appellant                                   CASE No.   CR 21 02 0692

                                 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: May 24, 2023

          SUTTON, Presiding Judge.

          {¶1}   Defendant-Appellant Stacey Roper appeals from his convictions in the Summit

County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

                                                 I.

          {¶2}   On March 2, 2021, Mr. Roper was indicted by a grand jury on one count of rape in

violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) and R.C. 2907.02(B), a felony of the first degree; one count of

kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(3) and R.C. 2905.01(C)(1), a felony of the first degree;

one count of kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(4) and R.C. 2905.01(C)(1), a felony of

the first degree; and one count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and R.C.

2903.11(D)(1)(a), a felony of the second degree. On June 11, 2021, a supplemental indictment was

filed, which added four additional counts of rape, and two counts of corrupting another with drugs

in violation in R.C. 2925.02(A)(1) and R.C. 2925.02(C)(1) and (2), both felonies of the second

degree.
                                                  2

          {¶3}   The charges stemmed from a horrific incident in February 2021, where the victim

in the case, F.L., picked up Mr. Roper and took him to her residence. During the long, brutal

ordeal, Mr. Roper struck the victim with a hammer and meat tenderizer, drugged her, and raped

her. The victim testified that she did not remember having sex with Mr. Roper, but semen was

found in her vagina and anus. Mr. Roper inserted an object, a Christmas ornament, into the

victim’s rectum that had to be surgically removed from the victim’s rectum.

          {¶4}   Mr. Roper entered a plea of not guilty and the case proceeded to trial. At trial, the

State presented testimony of nine witnesses, including testimony from the victim, responding

police officers, one of the victim’s co-workers, a sexual assault nurse examiner from the hospital

that treated the victim, a forensic scientist who performed the DNA test on the rape kit, and an

analytical chemist and a toxicologist who both testified about the results of the victim’s urine drug

screen. Mr. Roper presented the testimony of the emergency room physician who treated the

victim, and his mother.

          {¶5}   The jury returned a guilty verdict on ten of the eleven counts, finding Mr. Roper

not guilty of one of the counts pertaining to corrupting another with drugs. Mr. Roper was

sentenced to an indefinite prison term of a minimum of 16 years and a possible, aggregate,

maximum prison term of 19 years, with 10 years of that time being mandatory. His sentence also

included five years of post-release control and a requirement that he register as a tier III sex

offender upon release from prison.

          {¶6}   Mr. Roper filed a timely appeal and raises one assignment of error for this Court’s

review.
                                                   3

                                                  II.

                                   ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

       THE JURY VERDICT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE
       EVIDENCE.

       {¶7}    In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Roper argues that the jury verdict in his case

was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

       {¶8}    This Court has previously stated:

       In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the
       evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and
       all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine
       whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way
       and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be
       reversed and a new trial ordered.

State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). “[W]hen reversing a conviction on the

basis that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court sits as a ‘thirteenth

juror,’ and disagrees with the factfinder’s resolution of the conflicting testimony.” State v. Tucker,

9th Dist. Medina No. 06CA0035-M, 2006-Ohio-6914, ¶ 5. This discretionary power “should be

exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the

conviction.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997), quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio

App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). See also Otten at 340.

       {¶9}    Mr. Roper argues that the jury erred in reaching its verdict because the victim’s

testimony was contradictory. However, because Mr. Roper’s brief is not in compliance with the

appellate rules, we decline to address the merits of Mr. Roper’s arguments.

       {¶10} App.R. 16(A)(7) provides that “[t]he appellant shall include in [his] brief * * * [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,
                                                 4

statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies.” See also Hershberger v. Shelmar

Realty, Inc., 9th Dist. Summit No. 28110, 2017-Ohio-353, ¶ 12. Mr. Roper has failed to provide

any “citations to the * * * parts of the record” upon which he relies. App.R. 16(A)(7). He has

provided no citations to any pleadings, motions, evidentiary materials, or portions of the transcript

that would support his argument that the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the

evidence.

        {¶11} “Pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(2), this 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 or fails to argue the assignment separately in the brief, as required by

App.R. 16(A).’” Hershberger at ¶ 13, quoting In re J.S., 9th Dist. Summit No. 28154, 2016-Ohio-

5120, ¶ 12, quoting App.R. 12(A)(2). This rule reflects the principle that an appellant bears the

burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal. Id. “It is not the obligation of an appellate

court to search the record for evidence to support an appellant’s claim of an alleged error.” In re

J.S. at ¶ 12.

        {¶12} Given Mr. Roper’s complete failure throughout his entire brief to cite to any

portions of the record in support of his argument on appeal, we disregard his argument and

assignment of error pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(2). Mr. Roper’s sole assignment of error is

overruled.

                                                III.

        {¶13} Mr. Roper’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

                                                                                Judgment affirmed.
                                                 5

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

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

Pleas, County of Summit, 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.

                                                     BETTY SUTTON
                                                     FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, J.
STEVENSON, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

ALAN M. MEDVICK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.