State v Clair

4-24-2009 Ohio:

State v Clair
2013-Ohio-1630

{¶ 1} Appellant Zachary Clair ("Clair"), appeals a decision of the Alliance Municipal Court, Stark County, Ohio classifying him as a Tier I sex offender after a no contest plea.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} In State v. Hooks, 92 Ohio St.3d 83, 2001-Ohio-150, 748 N.E.2d 528(2001), the Supreme Court noted, "a reviewing court cannot add matter to the record before it that was not a part of the trial court's proceedings, and then decide the appeal on the basis of the new matter. See, State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402, 377 N.E.2d 500(1978)." It is also a longstanding rule "that the record cannot be enlarged by factual assertions in the brief." Dissolution of Doty v. Doty, 4th Dist.No. 411, 1980 WL 350992 (Feb. 28, 1980), citing Scioto Bank v. Columbus Union Stock Yards, 120 Ohio App. 55, 59, 201 N.E.2d 227(1963). New material and factual assertions contained in any brief in this court may not be considered. See, North v. Beightler, 112 Ohio St.3d 122, 2006-Ohio-6515, 858 N.E.2d 386, ¶7, quoting Dzina v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio-1195, 843 N.E.2d 1202, ¶16. Therefore, we have disregarded facts in both parties' brief that are outside of the record.

... ... ...

{¶ 28} For the foregoing reasons, the portion of the trial court's decision classifying Clair as a Tier I sex offender is reversed, and this matter is remanded for proceedings in accordance with our opinion and the law.

JUDGEMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the portion of the trial court's decision classifying Clair as a Tier I sex offender is reversed, and this matter is remanded for proceedings in accordance with our opinion and the law. Costs to appellee.