State v. Mhanna

[Cite as State v. Mhanna, 2026-Ohio-3681.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2026-02-023 Appellee, : OPINION AND vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 9/21/2026 THERESA A. MHANNA, : Appellant. : : CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT Case No. 2025TRD002971 Smith & Webb, Attorneys, and Chase T. Kirby, for appellee. Theresa A. Mhanna, pro se. ____________ OPINION PIPER, P.J. {¶ 1} Appellant, Theresa A. Mhanna, appeals her conviction in the Warren County Court for speeding, a minor misdemeanor. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.  Warren CA2026-02-023 I. Factual and Procedural Background {¶ 2} On September 1, 2025, Sergeant Jonathan Denlinger of the Waynesville Police Department was patrolling near Old Stage Road in Waynesville, Warren County, Ohio. Sgt. Denlinger had served with the department for more than 17 years and had experience enforcing traffic laws in the village. At the beginning and end of his patrol, he confirmed that his radar unit was working properly by checking its calibration with tuning forks. {¶ 3} During his patrol, Sgt. Denlinger observed a 2008 Honda traveling at what appeared to be an excessive speed. The vehicle was louder than normal, and based on his training and experience, Sgt. Denlinger visually estimated that it exceeded the posted 25 m.p.h. speed limit. He then confirmed with his radar unit that the vehicle was traveling 42 m.p.h. in a posted 25 m.p.h. zone. The violation occurred within the Village of Waynesville in Warren County, Ohio. Sgt. Denlinger initiated a routine traffic stop, made contact with the driver, and identified her as Theresa A. Mhanna. He cited Mhanna for speeding, and after trials in both the Waynesville Mayor's Court and Warren County Court, each court found Mhanna guilty. {¶ 4} Mhanna now appeals, raising nine assignments of error for our review. II. Legal Analysis {¶ 5} Mhanna challenges her speeding citation on various grounds, including the admissibility, timely disclosure, and sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial. However, her brief gives each assignment of error only cursory treatment and relies primarily on unsupported bullet-point assertions. {¶ 6} "An appellant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal and substantiating his arguments in support thereof." (Citation omitted.) State v. -2-  Warren CA2026-02-023 Crawford, 2024-Ohio-691, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.). App.R. 16(A)(7) requires an appellant's brief to include "[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, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies." When a party fails to satisfy these requirements, App.R. 12(A)(2) authorizes an appellate court to disregard the assignment of error. State v. Hall, 2022-Ohio-1147, ¶ 212 (12th Dist.)(declining to review arguments presented "without any supporting argument" due to lack of briefing). This court has exercised that authority when an appellant offers nothing more than conclusory statements unsupported by meaningful legal analysis. See, e.g., State v. Watson, 126 Ohio App.3d 316, 321-322 (12th Dist. 1998); Crawford at ¶ 15-16 (overruling assignment of error where appellant "fails to cite to the record and does not offer any analysis of the assigned error"). {¶ 7} Mhanna's brief offers only her bare assertions with zero citations to the record—her first, fifth, sixth, and ninth assignments of error cite no legal authorities whatsoever, and her other assignments of error make only passing references with no meaningful analysis. "[A] pro se appellant is held to the same obligations and standards outlined in the appellate rules that apply to all litigants." BMO Bank N.A. v. Wilson, 2026- Ohio-3494, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.). Consequently, this court may disregard each of these assignments of error that fail to comply with the appellate rules. {¶ 8} Appellate courts are neutral adjudicators, not advocates. It is not this court's duty "to 'root out' or develop an argument that can support an assigned error, even if one exists." Crawford at ¶ 15, quoting Lebanon v. Ballinger, 2015-Ohio-3522, ¶ 27 (12th Dist.). Nor is it our obligation to search the record for evidence supporting an appellant's argument as to alleged error. Id. As we have observed, an appellate court "is not a performing bear, required to dance to each and every tune played on an appeal." -3-  Warren CA2026-02-023 (Cleaned up.) Watson at 321. {¶ 9} Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, we have reviewed the record in light of Mhanna's assignments of error and find that her contentions have no merit. {¶ 10} At trial, Sgt. Denlinger testified that he observed Mhanna driving 42 m.p.h. in a 25 m.p.h. zone in the Village of Waynesville, in violation of Waynesville Cod.Ord. 73.10. An officer's visual estimation of speed is sufficient to support a speeding conviction. State v. Gellenbeck, 2009-Ohio-1731, ¶ 28 (12th Dist.). Moreover, Sgt. Denlinger testified that he confirmed this speed with his radar unit, which he checked for accurate calibration at the beginning of his shift and at the end of his shift. The Ohio Supreme Court has found the results of a radar speed-measuring device may be admitted into evidence without expert testimony establishing the reliability of the scientific principles underlying the technology. City of Brook Park v. Rodojev, 2020-Ohio-3253, ¶ 18-19. As such, the trial court properly considered this evidence along with Sgt. Denlinger's testimony. {¶ 11} We find Mhanna's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and by the manifest weight of the evidence. Our examination of the record revealed no reversible error. III. Conclusion {¶ 12} For the reasons outlined above, we hold that the record supports no error on the part of the trial court and overrule Mhanna's nine assignments of error. Mhanna's appeal is meritless. The same is hereby denied. {¶ 13} Judgment affirmed. M. POWELL and SIEBERT, JJ., concur. -4-  Warren CA2026-02-023 JUDGMENT ENTRY The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Warren County Court for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24. /s/ Robin N. Piper, Presiding Judge /s/ Mike Powell, Judge /s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge -5-