Court Opinion

ID: 9964281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 16:09:38.520288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:16.725676
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Bowling, 2024-Ohio-1638.]

                                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                          TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                          WARREN COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO,                                 :

        Appellee,                               :     CASE NO. CA2023-10-078

                                                :             OPINION
     - vs -                                                    4/29/2024
                                                :

 WALTER TERRY BOWLING,                          :

        Appellant.                              :

     CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                          Case No. 23CR40179

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Craig A. Newburger, for appellant.

        BYRNE, J.

        {¶ 1} Walter Terry Bowling appeals from his convictions for two counts of

aggravated possession of drugs and one count of domestic violence in the Warren County

Court of Common Pleas.

        {¶ 2} Bowling presents a single assignment of error, challenging both the
                                                                     Warren CA2023-10-078

sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. After generally summarizing the law

applicable to sufficiency-of-the-evidence and manifest-weight-of-the-evidence claims,

Bowling presents the following statement as his sole and entire legal argument:

              Wherefore, Appellant asks this Court to determine whether his
              convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence and/or
              were against the manifest weight of the evidence and order
              any appropriate remedies.

Bowling does not elaborate on this argument in any way.

       {¶ 3} App.R. 12(A)(2) provides that 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 or fails to argue the assignment

separately in the brief, as required under App.R. 16(A)." In turn, App.R. 16(A)(7) requires

an appellant's brief to include an argument containing the appellant's contentions 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."

       {¶ 4} Bowling has failed to present any argument with respect to his contention

that his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence or were against the

manifest weight of the evidence. Nor does Bowling cite any portion of the record, any

authority, or any statute in support of these contentions. Instead, he asks this court to

review the record and develop arguments on his behalf. However, it is not the obligation

of the appellate court to search the record for evidence to support an appellant's argument

as to any alleged error. State v. Carpenter, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2022-02-005, 2023-

Ohio-2523, ¶ 82, citing State v. Watson, 126 Ohio App.3d 316, 321 (12th Dist.1998).

       {¶ 5} Because of Bowling's failure to present any argument and to support any

argument with citations to the record, we disregard his sole assignment of error for failure

                                               -2-
                                                                Warren CA2023-10-078

to comply with App.R. 12(A)(2) and 16(A)(7). See State v. Patrick, 12th Dist. Butler No.

CA2015-05-090, 2016-Ohio-995, ¶ 38. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

      {¶ 6} Appeal dismissed.

      S. POWELL, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.

                                           -3-