.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WOOD COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-16-007
Appellee Trial Court No. 11 CR 364
v.
Craig Myers DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: September 30, 2016
…
Craig R. Myers, pro se.
…
JENSEN, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Craig Myers, appeals the January 8, 2016 judgment of
the Wood County Court of Common Pleas denying his motions to obtain dispatch
records, for complete discovery, for release of all personal property from former defense
counsel, and to dismiss court costs.
{¶ 2} Myers has set forth the following assignments of error in support of his
appeal:
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Trial Court failed to review that the State failed to prove, that the
Appellant provided marijuana to the alleged victim/resident during, or after
the posting of the $50,000.00 dollar bond. [sic]
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Trial Court failed to show a “pattern of conduct” as to the menacing
by stalking. The alleged victim did not show mental distress or fear of
physical harm, or that the Appellant threatened physical harm tot he alleged
victim, as the statute for menacing by stalking establishes. [sic]
THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
State prosecution engaged in a pattern of Prosecutorial misconduct,
as well as a pattern of corrupt activity with law officials. Violating the
Appellant’s Constitutional right to due process. [sic]
FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The abuse of discretion that the Trial Court inflicted on to the
Appellant, violated the Appellants due process as to a fair hearing to revoke
bond. The loss of liberty interfered with the Appellant ability to
preservation of justice and the presumption of innocence before conviction,
2.
and deprived the Appellant the ability to participate in a wide range of
activities that are important to the administration. [sic]
{¶ 3} Myers’ assignments of error—and the arguments in support of those
assignments—are entirely unrelated to the order from which Myers appealed. Because
Myers has failed to assign error relating to the order from which he appealed, we find his
assignments of error not well-taken and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Myers
is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal under App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Thomas J. Osowik, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Stephen A. Yarbrough, J.
_______________________________
James D. Jensen, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
3.
