COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71627 CHARLES D. SLONE ) ACCELERATED DOCKET ) Appellant ) JOURNAL ENTRY ) -vs- ) AND ) BOARD OF EMBALMERS AND ) OPINION FUNERAL DIRECTORS OF OHIO ) ) Appellee ) PER CURIAM Date of Announcement of Decision NOVEMBER 6, 1997 Character of Proceeding Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas Case No. 301566 Judgment Affirmed Date of Journalization Appearances: For Appellant: For Appellee: JAMES R. DOUGLASS, ESQ. BETTY D. MONTGOMERY Zellmer & Gruber Attorney General of Ohio 1400 Leader Building CHRISTOPHER S. COOK, Asst. Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Attorney General Rhodes State Office Tower 30 East Broad St., 26th Fl. Columbus, Ohio 43215-3428 2 PER CURIAM: This appeal is before the Court on the accelerated docket pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc. App.R. 25. Appellant Charles D. Slone appeals from the decision of the Common Pleas Court affirming the decision of the appellee Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors of Ohio (Board) revoking plaintiff's state licenses as a funeral director and embalmer. Plaintiff claims the revocation was not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence. We find no error and affirm. The Board originally revoked appellant's Ohio licenses in November 1994 based on appellant's admitted embezzlement of substantial funds from his employer. Pursuant to R.C. 119.12, appellant appealed that decision to the Common Pleas Court which affirmed the Board's order. On appeal to this Court, the Board's order was reversed because the Board originally sent the revocation order to appellant via regular mail and to appellant's counsel via certified mail when the certified mail delivery should have been sent to appellant rather than to his counsel. Slone v. Bd. of Embalmers & Funeral Direc. (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 628. Subsequently, the Board rescinded and re-issued its order revoking appellant's licenses thereby complying with the procedural requirements of R.C. 119.09 and 119.12. Appellant appealed the Board's order again to the Common Pleas Court contending inter alia that the Board had failed to certify the complete record to the Common Pleas Court. In fact, the record had been timely certified 3 to the court by the Board and was misfiled in the clerk's office, a fact which appellant now concedes. The lower court affirmed the Board's order on November 5, 1996, finding that it was supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence. Appellant filed a timely appeal to this Court. The assignments of error will be addressed in the order asserted. I. THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF EMBALMERS AND FUNERAL DIRECTORS OF OHIO WHEN SAID BOARD FAILED TO RESPOND TO ITS STATUTORY DUTY AND PROVIDE A COPY OF THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD TO THE AFFECTED PARTY AFTER REQUEST FOR SAME WAS MADE. Appellant contends that the Board's order should be reversed because the Board failed to provide appellant a copy of the transcript of the administrative hearing. R.C. 119.12 states in pertinent part: *** Upon demand by any interested party, the agency shall furnish at the cost of the party requesting it a copy of the stenographic report of testimony offered and evidence submitted at any hearing and a copy of the complete record. The Board admits that a request for the transcript was made by appellant's counsel; however, when appellant's counsel was informed that it would be at appellant's cost, no offer to pay or tender of said costs was made. We are unable to review this assignment of error as the appellant did not file his notice of appeal from the orders of the trial court denying his motions for judgment based on the Board's failure to supply him a copy of the transcript. Plaintiff only 4 filed his notice of appeal from the trial court's judgment filed on November 5, 1996 which affirmed the Board's decision as supported by reliable, substantial and probative evidence. App.R. 3(C) provides: (C) Content of the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal shall specify the party or parties taking the appeal; shall designate the judgment, order or part thereof appealed from; and shall name the court to which the appeal is taken. *** Plaintiff's notice of appeal does not designate or even reference the earlier orders of the trial court, dated July 9 and August 14, 1996, which overruled appellant's motion for judgment because he did not receive a copy of the transcript specified by R.C. 119.12. This Court has held that it is without jurisdiction to review a judgment or order that is not designated in the appellant's notice of appeal. Parks v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 426, 428; Schloss v. McGinness (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 96, 98; Cavanaughv. Sealey (Jan. 23, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 69907, 69908, 69909, unreported at 5; In re Estate of Carl Borgh (Jan. 4, 1996), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 68033, 68145, unreported at 9; Chotkevys v. Seman (Sept. 21, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 67812, unreported at 8; McCarthy v. Stop-N-Shop Supermarkets, Inc. (July 28, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 65839, unreported at 5-7. In any event, appellant will not be heard to complain of the Board's failure to supply him with a copy of the transcript when he made no effort to assure payment of the costs incurred as required by the statute. R.C. 119.12. Although we do not believe the 5 appellant had to make an offer to pay, he should have informed the agency he still desired the copy when told he would have to pay for it. Furthermore, we find no evidence that appellant has been prejudiced by lack of a copy of the transcript. Appellant had the opportunity to review the official record and transcript on file in the clerk's office and obtain copies of any relevant materials necessary to his appeal. He does not explain how he was prejudiced by not receiving his personal copy of the transcript. Assignment of Error I is overruled. 6 II. THE COURT ERRED IN NOT REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF EMBALMERS AND FUNERAL DIRECTORS OF OHIO TO REVOKE APPELLANT SLONE'S EMBALMERS LICENSE WHEN SUCH REVOCATION WAS NOT BASED UPON RELIABLE, PROBATIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Appellant contends that the Board's order revoking both his funeral director's and embalmer's license was not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence because he embezzled funds from his employer in his capacity as a funeral director and not as an embalmer. We find no merit to this contention. We recently described the limitations on the scope of review on R.C. 119.12 appeals in In Re Senders (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 199, 203 as follows: The standards of review in both the trial court and this Court on an R.C. 119.12 administrative appeal were recently set forth in Diversified Benefit Plans Agency, Inc. v. Duryee (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 495, 499: When reviewing an order of an administrative agency, a common pleas court acts in a `limited appellate capacity.' Univ. Hosp., Univ. of Cincinnati College of Medicine v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 339, 343, 587 N.E.2d 835, 838. In reviewing an order of an administrative agency pursuant to R.C. 119.12, the common pleas court is bound to affirm the agency's order `if it is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, and is in accordance with the law.' Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621, 614 N.E.2d 748, 750. See, also, Bottoms Up, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 726, 728, 596 N.E.2d 475, 476. The common pleas court ' must give due deference to the administrative resolution of evidentiary conflicts"' and therefore must not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency. Hawkins v. Marion Corr. Inst. (1990), 62 Ohio App.3d 863, 870, 577 N.E.2d 720, 724, quoting Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad (1980), 7 63 Ohio St.2d 108, 111, 17 O.O.3d 65, 67, 407 N.E.2d 1265, 1267. An appellate court's review of the trial court's decision is even more limited and requires the appellate court `to determine only if the trial court has abused its discretion, i.e., being not merely an error of judgment, but perversity of will, passion, prejudice, partiality or moral delinquency.' Pons,66 Ohio St.3d at 621, 614 N.E.2d at 750- 751. Where the common pleas court applies a standard of review greater than that called for in R.C. 119.12, the trial court has abused its discretion. Bottoms Up, Inc., 72 Ohio App.3d at 729-730, 596 N.E.2d at 476-477. The Board revoked appellant's licenses pursuant to R.C. 4717.08(B) and (D). Those sections state that the Board may revoke any license granted under this chapter for any of the following reasons : (B) If the applicant or holder has been convicted of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude; * * * (D) If the applicant or holder has been guilty of immoral or unprofessional conduct *** We find no merit to appellant's contention that the Board improperly revoked his embalmer's license because the embezzlement involved only his funeral director's license. Clearly, the embezzlement of $150,000 from one's employer involves a crime of moral turpitude as well as unprofessional conduct. The Board is clearly vested with broad discretion under these statutes and we will not interfere with what we deem to be its sound exercise. See Ciriello v. Bd. of Embalmers and Funeral Directors of Ohio (July 17, 1995) Summit App. No. 10922, unreported at 7, where the court 8 ruled that an administrative agency's construction of a statute that the agency is empowered to enforce must be accorded due deference, citing Leon v. Bd. of Psychology (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 683, 687 and Chaney v. Clark Cty. Agr. Soc., Inc. (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 421, 426. Appellant's convoluted argument that he only stole interest income does not warrant further discussion. We find that the Board's revocation of both licenses was amply justified by this record. Assignment of Error II is overruled. Judgment affirmed. 9 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 Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES D. SWEENEY, CHIEF JUSTICE DAVID T. MATIA, JUDGE JAMES M. PORTER, JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .