Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Neal v. Stuff

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 1246
• Docket Number: 2025 CA 0103

• Judges: Baldwin

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

Manifest weight of the evidence; Suppression

Combined Opinion

[Cite as Neal v. Stuff, 2026-Ohio-1246.]

COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

MOURICE NEAL, Case No. 2025 CA 0103

Petitioner - Appellant Opinion And Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Richland County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2025 CV 0526 R
ANGELA STUFF, Warden
Judgment: Affirmed
Respondent - Appellee
Date of Judgment Entry: April 6, 2026

BEFORE: Andrew J. King; Craig R. Baldwin; Kevin W. Popham, Judges

APPEARANCES: MOURICE NEAL, #A803-845, Pro Se, for Plaintiff-Appellant; DAVE
YOST, Attorney General of Ohio, LISA A. BROWNING, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, for Defendant-Appellee.

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} The appellant, Mourice Neal, an inmate at the Richland Correctional

Institution, appeals the November 4, 2025, judgment of the Richland County Court of

Common Pleas granting the motion to dismiss filed by the appellee, Angela Stuff, Warden

of the Richland Correctional Institution. We affirm the trial court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE

{¶2} On June 17, 2022, the appellant was indicted on one count of Duty to

Register in violation of R.C. 2950.04(A)(4)(a) in the Sandusky County Court of Common

Pleas.

{¶3} A jury found the appellant guilty, and he was sentenced to prison on

September 22, 2023.
{¶4} The appellant filed a direct appeal to the Sixth District Court of Appeals

challenging the appellant’s waiver of counsel and the manifest weight and sufficiency of

the evidence. On January 31, 2025, the Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial

court’s judgment.

{¶5} On August 19, 2025, the appellant filed a motion seeking a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to R.C. 2725.01.

{¶6} On September 12, 2025, the appellee filed a motion to dismiss.

{¶7} On October 3, 2025, the appellant filed a response to the appellee’s motion

to dismiss.

{¶8} On November 4, 2025, the trial court granted the appellee’s motion to

dismiss.

{¶9} The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and herein raised the following

four assignments of error:

{¶10} “I. WHETHER APPELLEE (sic) CONVICTION FOR DUTY TO REGISTER,

AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF R.C. 2950.04(A)(4)(a) AND 2950.99(A)(4)(a)(ii), WAS

AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, WHICH THE STATE FAILED TO

PROVE, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT APPELLEE (sic) CONVICTION

FROM MICHIGAN WAS FOR AN OFFENSE WHICH WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF A

TIER III OFFENSE IN OHIO, THUS SUBJECTING APPELLEE (sic) TO A LIFETIME

REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT R.C. 2950.04(A)(1)(a).”

{¶11} “II. APPELLEE (sic) CONVICTION WENT AGAINST OHIO COURT RULE

OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 7(A), WHICH THE INDICTMENT WAS FILED AFTER 14

DAYS. AND WITH CRIMINAL RULE 4(2)(f)(a) WHICH WAS NOT DONE WITHIN

48HOURS (sic) AFTER THE ARREST.”
{¶12} “III. OHIO STATE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, SECTION 14 RIGHTS

WAS VIOLATED WHEN NO WARRANT ISSUED.”

{¶13} “IV. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT 4 AND 14”

{¶14} Initially, we note that the appellant has the burden of demonstrating error

on appeal. See, App.R. 16(A)(7). “It is the duty of the appellant, not this court, to

demonstrate his assigned error through an argument that is supported by citations to

legal authority and facts in the record.” State v. Untied, 2007-Ohio-1804, ¶141 (5th Dist.).

“If an argument exists that can support [an] assignment of error, it is not this court’s duty

to root it out.” State v. Romy, 2021-Ohio-501, ¶35 (5th Dist.), citing Thomas v. Harmon,

2009-Ohio-3299, ¶14.

{¶15} The appellant has not supported his general argument with citations to the

record, nor has he shown that the facts he argues are even present in the record.

Accordingly, the appellant’s brief does not comply with App.R. 16(A)(7), which provides:

The appellant shall include in its brief, under the headings and in the

order indicated, all of the following * * * An 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. The argument may be preceded by a summary.

{¶16} “It is not the function of this court to construct a foundation for [an

appellant’s] claims; failure to comply with the rules governing practice in the appellate

courts is a tactic which is ordinarily fatal.” Catanzarite v. Boswell, 2009-Ohio-1211, ¶16

(9th Dist.), quoting Kremer v. Cox, 114 Ohio App.3d 41, 60 (9th Dist. 1996). Therefore,

we may disregard assignments of error the appellant presents for review because he failed
to identify in the record the error on which the assignment of error is based. Dye v. J.J.

Detweiler Enters., 2022-Ohio-3250, ¶69 (5th Dist.); App.R. 12(A)(2). As the appellant

has failed to identify in the record facts to support his argument and apply the applicable

legal authority to those facts we disregard all four of the appellant’s assignments of error.

{¶17} Accordingly, the appellant’s first, second, third, and fourth assignments of

error are overruled.

CONCLUSION

{¶18} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of

Richland County, Ohio, is affirmed.

{¶19} Costs to the appellant.

By: Baldwin, J.

King, P.J. and

Popham, J. concur.