COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60260 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION JAMES ANDERSON : : Defendant-appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MAY 21, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CR-231,204 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor TIMOTHY DOBECK, Assistant Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: PATRICK TALTY Attorney at Law 20800 Center Ridge Road, #211 Rocky River, Ohio 44116 - 1 - FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, J.: Defendant-appellant, James Anderson, entered pleas of no contest to one count of aggravated robbery (R.C. 2911.01) and one count of felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11). Appellant now timely appeals the convictions entered following his no-contest pleas. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the appellant's con- victions. The pertinent facts are as follows: On October 26, 1988, appellant was indicted for aggravated robbery (R.C. 2911.01) and felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11) arising out of an incident which occurred on September 9, 1981. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the charges on the ground that the statute of limitations had run pursuant to R.C. 2901.13 and that a prior finding of the Cleveland Municipal Court dis- missing the charges constitutes res judicata. After a hearing, the trial court denied appellant's motion to dismiss the charges. Appellant then entered pleas of no contest to the indictments. Appellant timely appeals his convictions, raising one assign-ment of error for our review. - 2 - THE TRIAL COURT ERRORED (SIC.) IN DENYING APPELLANT, JAMES ANDERSON'S, MOTION TO DIS- MISS BECAUSE HIS PROSECUTION WAS NOT COM- MENCED WITHIN THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMI- TATIONS, AND BECAUSE THE DECISION OF THE CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL COURT DISMISSING SUCH CHARGES IS RES JUDICATA. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charges on the ground that the prosecution was not commenced within the six-year statute of limitations and that a prior dismissal of the charges at a preliminary hearing constitutes res judicata. We cannot address the merits of this alleged error since the trial court record does not contain a transcript of the hearing on appellant's motion to dismiss the charges. An appellant has a duty to exemplify any alleged error by reference to matters in the record. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 197, 199. This duty may be discharged by the filing of a verba- tim transcript pursuant to App. R. 9(B), a narrative statement of the evidence as provided in App. R. 9(C), or an agreed statement of the record filed pursuant to App. R. 9(D). Absent any exem- plified error, a reviewing court has no choice but to presume regularity in the proceedings of the trial court. Id. Furthermore, the finding of the Cleveland Municipal Court at a preliminary hearing was not appealable and the discharge of defendant was not a bar to further prosecution. Crim. R. 5(B)(- 5); State v. Washington (1986), 30 Ohio App. 3d 98. Therefore, we find that the decision of the municipal court to dismiss the - 3 - charges at as preliminary hearing did not constitute res judicata Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 4 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DAVID T. MATIA, C.J. NAHRA, J. CONCUR JUDGE FRANCIS E. SWEENEY N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .