COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69112 : ACCELERATED DOCKET CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION MICHAEL ALLEN : : Defendant-Appellant : PER CURIAM : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MAY 16, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Shaker Hts. Municipal Court : Case No. 95 TRD 1640 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : __________________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: GARY R. WILLIAMS, Prosecutor City of Shaker Heights 3400 Lee Road Shaker Heights, Ohio 44120 For defendant-appellant: MICHAEL J. ALLEN, pro se 10346 Luman Avenue Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 - 2 - PER CURIAM: This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 25, the records from the Shaker Heights Municipal Court, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel. Appellant Michael Allen appeals his conviction in Shaker Heights Municipal Court of a violation of Section 1133.03 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Shaker Heights, exceeding the posted speed limit. Because we have no transcript of the proceedings, we must affirm the judgment of the court below. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. On February 24, 1995, defendant Allen was cited for travelling 50 miles per hour in a 35 mile-per-hour zone on Van Aken Boulevard in Shaker Heights, Ohio, in violation of Section 1133.03 of the Shaker Heights Municipal Ordinances. On March 20, 1995, defendant pled not guilty to the charge. The matter proceeded to trial on April 17, 1995 in Shaker Heights Municipal Court. The record reflects that the defendant claimed that the car would not exceed 30 miles per hour and the judge, therefore, ordered Allen to bring his vehicle to the Shaker Heights Police Station for a road test. The results of such test were to be - 3 - submitted to the court on April 24, 1995. The results of the road test of the vehicle confirmed that the vehicle could exceed 30 miles per hour. On May 1, 1995, the judge found the defendant guilty of the charge. Allen was fined $35 and costs. On May 11, 1995, defen- dant filed his motion to suspend imposition of the fine during pendency of this appeal. Michael J. Allen timely filed his appeal of the judgment of the trial court. Appellant Allen filed his notice of appeal on June 6, 1995. This notice of appeal included the request for transcript under App.R. 9(B) and the certification that appellant had directed the court reporter to prepare the required transcript pursuant to Loc.R. 4. On July 20, 1995, the appellant filed an amended praecipe pursuant to Loc.R. 4. The amended praecipe did not request the record to include a transcript pursuant to App.R. 9(B) or a statement of evidence pursuant to App.R. 9(C) or an agreed statement pursuant to App.R. 9(D). The record certified to this court does not include a transcript of proceedings. Appellant presents three errors for our review. The gravamen of the errors presented by the appellant is that the trial court deviated from proper procedure and, therefore, prejudiced the appellant's right to a fair trial: 1) The trial court erred by abridging the rights of the appellant by denying the appellant a full and complete hearing of his case by denying him the opportunity to make a closing statement; - 4 - 2) The trial court erred by judicial inat- tention to a self-impeaching statement on cross-examination of the sole prose- cution witness; 3) The trial court erred by improperly con- sidering evidence which was wholly ex- culpatory to the case of the appellant. In the present case, the record certified to this court is an App.R. 9(A) record and contains the original papers and a cer- tified copy of the journal entries. The court of appeals is bound by the record before it and may not consider facts extrane- ous thereto. Paulin v. Midland Mutual Life (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 109. Absent a transcript of the proceedings or its alternatives, a court will presume regularity and the validity of judgment of the trial court. Ostrander v. Parker-Fallis Insulation (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 72, 74; In re Sublett (1959),169 Ohio St.19, 20; State v. Wolfe (Oct. 23,1986) Cuyahoga App. No. 51124, unreport- ed, at 5. Allegations raised in an appellate brief are not suf- ficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in a trial court's proceedings and judgment entered by the court. State v. Wolfe, supra, at 5; Zashin, Rich, Sutula & Monastra Co., L.P.A. v. Offenberg (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 436. It is well established that the duty to provide a transcript for appellate review falls upon the appellant. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197. A review of the amended praecipe filed with the clerk reveals that appellant Allen only requested the original papers and exhibits filed in the trial court and a certified copy of the docket and journal entries pursuant to App.R. 9(A). The appellant has not provided this - 5 - court a transcript of the trial below. Where no transcript of proceedings of the trial is included in the record on appeal and no substitute statement of evidence is provided and no statement has been filed to indicate that transcript is not needed in order to consider the appeal, the appellant cannot demonstrate the error of which he complains, and the appellate court must affirm. Farmer Production Credit Assn. of Ashland v. Stoll (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 76. A presumption of validity attends the trial court's action. Thus, in the absence of an adequate record, which is the appellant's responsibility, the court of appeals is unable to evaluate the merits of the assignments of error and must affirm the trial court's decision. Volodkevich v. Volodkevich (1989), 48 Ohio App.3d 313. Because appellant failed to request a transcript, we have no alternative but to presume the regularity and validity of the proceedings. Knapp, supra; Wiltsie v. Teamor (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 280 and Sasarak v. Sasarak (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 744. There is nothing in the record before us to support the appellant's claims in his assignments of error, and we must pre- sume regularity in the trial court's proceedings and the judgment entered by the court. Accordingly, appellant's assignments of error are not well- taken. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. - 6 - This cause is affirmed. 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 Shaker Heights Municipal Court to carry this judg- ment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. LEO M. SPELLACY, CHIEF JUSTICE JAMES M. PORTER, JUDGE TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, JUDGE 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, .