[Cite as State v. Dixon,
2016-Ohio-7438.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
CASE NO. CA2016-04-074
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
OPINION
: 10/24/2016
- vs -
:
KRYSTAL M. DIXON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM FAIRFIELD MUNICIPAL COURT
Case No. 2015CRB01283-01
Stephen Wolterman, 530 Wessel Drive, Suite 2A, Fairfield, Ohio 45014, for appellee
Krystal M. Dixon, 2626 Tobermory Court, Cincinnati, Ohio 45231, appellant, pro se
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Krystal M. Dixon, appeals from her convictions in the
Fairfield Municipal Court for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. For the reasons outlined
below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On June 9, 2015, a complaint was filed in the Fairfield Municipal Court charging
Dixon with resisting arrest in violation of Fairfield Municipal Code Section 525.09(a), a
second-degree misdemeanor, and disorderly conduct in violation of Fairfield Municipal Code
Butler CA2016-04-074
Section 509.03(A)(2), a third-degree misdemeanor. The charges stemmed from allegations
Dixon berated the staff at the Fairfield Aquatic Center regarding their refund policy by using
loud, belligerent, and profane language before she and several others engaged in a verbal
and physical altercation with responding officers from the Fairfield Police Department.
{¶ 3} On July 8, 2015, Dixon filed a motion to suppress arguing that her arrest was
unlawful and requested the state to demonstrate why the charges against her should not be
dismissed. Dixon later filed a supplemental motion to suppress and a motion to dismiss,
wherein she alleged the "arresting officer had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
believe [she] had committed any offense."
{¶ 4} On February 11, 2016, after holding a hearing on the matter, the trial court
denied both Dixon's motion to suppress and her motion to dismiss. In so holding, the trial
court determined that after "carefully consider[ing] the evidence presented including the video
(State's Exhibit 1) and the applicable authority" that "[t]he City of Fairfield ha[d] established
both reasonable suspicion and probable cause for the arrest of [Dixon] and hereby denies
[Dixon's] request to dismiss the charges." It is undisputed that the state's Exhibit 1 is a
surveillance video taken from the Fairfield Aquatic Center that captured the altercation.
{¶ 5} On February 25, 2016, Dixon entered into a plea agreement wherein she pled
guilty to disorderly conduct and no contest to resisting arrest.1 After accepting Dixon's plea,
the trial court sentenced Dixon on the disorderly conduct charge to serve 60 days in jail, 30 of
which were suspended, with the other 30 days ordered to be completed on electrically
monitored house arrest. The trial court also ordered Dixon to serve two years on probation,
pay a fine of $475 plus court costs, and attend anger management classes. In addition, as it
relates to the resisting arrest charge, the trial court sentenced Dixon to serve 90 days in jail,
1. Dixon claims she actually pled no contest to disorderly conduct and guilty to resisting arrest. The record does
not support Dixon's claim.
-2-
Butler CA2016-04-074
all of which were suspended, and ordered her to pay a fine of $650 plus court costs.
{¶ 6} Dixon now appeals from her convictions, raising five assignments of error for
review.2 For ease of discussion, Dixon's assignments of error will be addressed together.
{¶ 7} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 8} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO
SUPPRESS.
{¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 10} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS.
{¶ 11} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 12} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT'S [SUPPLEMENTAL]
MOTION TO SUPPRESS/DISMISS.
{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 4:
{¶ 14} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO
SUPPRESS, BY NOT FOLLOWING HER OWN ORDER.
{¶ 15} Assignment of Error No. 5:
{¶ 16} COURT ERRED BY HER STATEMENTS TO THE DEFENDANT UPON
CONVICTING KRYSTAL M. DIXON.
{¶ 17} In her five assignments of error, Dixon argues the trial court erred by denying
her motion to suppress and motion to dismiss. Dixon also argues that her convictions must
be reversed because the trial court engaged in judicial misconduct by exhibiting a bias and
prejudice against her. According to Dixon, due to these errors, this court must reverse the
2. Dixon's notice of appeal and appellate brief filed in this matter relates only to Dixon's conviction for disorderly
conduct. However, because our analysis remains the same, we will address both of Dixon's convictions within
this opinion.
-3-
Butler CA2016-04-074
trial court's decision and dismiss any and all charges against her.3 We disagree.
{¶ 18} Dixon did not provide this court with a transcript of any of the various
proceedings before the trial court, including the hearing on her motion to suppress and
motion to dismiss. It is well-established that "[t]he duty to provide a transcript for appellate
review falls upon the appealing party since he or she bears the burden of showing error by
reference to matters in the record." State v. Williams, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-08-
060, 2013-Ohio-1387, ¶ 18. As a result, "[w]hen portions of the transcript necessary for
resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, we have nothing to pass upon and
have no choice but to presume the regularity of the lower court's proceeding and affirm."
State v. Gregory, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2006-05-016,
2006-Ohio-7037, ¶ 3. Therefore,
because Dixon did not provide this court with a transcript, we must presume the regularity
and validity of the trial court's decision to deny both Dixon's motion to suppress and motion to
dismiss. Although Dixon claims otherwise, this includes the trial court's assertion that it had
"carefully considered the evidence presented including the video (State's Exhibit 1) and the
applicable authority."
{¶ 19} Dixon nevertheless claims the trial court engaged in a "bait and switch" with the
state by only accepting the state's video evidence, Exhibit 1, a surveillance video taken from
the Fairfield Aquatic Center, when she also presented the trial court with a video of the
incident taken from a cellphone camera. According to Dixon, the video taken from the
cellphone camera proves she "broke no law." However, without a transcript of the
proceedings, we are unable to review the validity of Dixon's claim. In addition, although
3. Dixon raised several new arguments during oral argument that were not contained within her appellate brief.
"[A]n issue raised during oral argument for the first time and not assigned as error in an appellate brief is
waived." Andreyko v. Cincinnati, 153 Ohio App.3d 108,
2003-Ohio-2759, ¶ 20 (1st Dist.), citing Watkins v. Dept.
of Human Serv., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 00AP-224,
2000 WL 1617765 (Oct. 31, 2000); Simmons v. Budde, 10th
Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-846,
2015-Ohio-3780 (parties may not advance new arguments during oral argument).
Dixon's new arguments raised during oral argument will therefore not be addressed by this court.
-4-
Butler CA2016-04-074
Dixon later filed the video taken from the cellphone camera with this court, it is axiomatic that
"'[a] reviewing court cannot add matter to the record before it, which was not part of the trial
court's proceedings, and then decide the appeal on the basis of the new matter.'" State v.
Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12,
2014-Ohio-1019, ¶ 179, quoting State v. Ishmail,
54 Ohio St.2d
402 (1978), paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶ 20} Finally, as it relates to Dixon's claim that the trial court engaged in judicial
misconduct by exhibiting a bias and prejudice against her, we again note that Dixon did not
provide this court with a transcript of any of the various proceedings before the trial court,
thereby limiting our ability to review Dixon's claims. Moreover, even if this court was provided
with a transcript, in order to disqualify a municipal court judge, a party must comply with
procedures set forth in R.C. 2701.031. State v. Meyers, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2012-12-
027, 2014-Ohio-3384, ¶ 27. The statute provides the exclusive means by which a litigant
may claim that a municipal court judge is biased and prejudiced. State v. Hunter,
151 Ohio
App.3d 276,
2002-Ohio-7326, ¶ 17 (9th Dist.). In turn, "[d]isqualification proceedings are not
initiated in the court of appeals and cannot be reviewed by a court of appeals." State v. Ludt,
180 App.3d 672,
2009-Ohio-416, ¶ 17 (7th Dist.), citing Beer v. Griffith,
54 Ohio St.2d 440,
441 (1978). As such, this court is without jurisdiction to address this issue, nor may this court
"forward" the issue on to the Ohio Supreme Court as Dixon requested. State v. Wesley, 12th
Dist. Warren No. CA2008-06-086,
2008-Ohio-6755, ¶ 18.
{¶ 21} In light of the foregoing, and based on the record properly before this court, we
find no merit to any of Dixon's five assignments of error and overrule the same.4 In reaching
this decision, we note that "the right of self-representation is not a license for failure to
4. During oral argument, Dixon's father questioned this court as to why the state's appellate brief was not listed
on the Butler County Clerk of Court's website until several weeks after it was due. While it may be true that the
state's brief was not immediately posted on the website, it nevertheless contains the necessary timestamp from
the Butler County Clerk of Court indicating it was timely filed in accordance with this court's scheduling entry.
-5-
Butler CA2016-04-074
comply with the relevant rules of procedure and substantive law." State v. Palmer, 12th Dist.
Warren No. CA2005-08-097, 2006-Ohio-2712, ¶ 9. In turn, a criminal defendant appearing
pro se is expected, as attorneys are, to abide by the rules of evidence and procedure,
regardless of her familiarity with them. State v. Gellenbeck, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2008-
08-030,
2009-Ohio-1731, ¶ 29. In other words, pro se litigants are "not to be accorded
greater rights and are bound to accept the results of their own mistakes and errors, including
those related to correct legal procedures." State v. Kline, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2004-10-
125,
2005-Ohio-4336, ¶ 9.
{¶ 22} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.
-6-
