2022 Ohio 873
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In March 2007 Lonnie Rarden was convicted after a jury trial of multiple felonies and misdemeanors and sentenced to 26.5 years in prison.
- On March 26, 2007 Rarden filed a pro se "Motion for Modification of Verdict" under Crim.R. 33(A)(4) (seeking modification without a new trial) and a notice of appeal; the trial court purportedly denied the motion but that order was later held void because the appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction.
- The Twelfth District affirmed Rarden’s convictions on direct appeal in 2008; Rarden later filed numerous postconviction motions and appeals, all unsuccessful.
- On June 18, 2021 Rarden filed an "Amendment or Supplement" purporting to convert his 2007 motion into a motion for new trial and raising new grounds under Crim.R. 33(A)(1) and (5) and R.C. 2945.79.
- The state moved to strike; the trial court struck Rarden’s 2007 motion and the 2021 amendment with prejudice and denied his request for an extension to respond.
- Rarden appealed; the appellate court overruled all three assignments of error and affirmed the trial court — holding the 2021 amendment improper, the 2007 motion effectively overruled, and the other claims barred or without merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rarden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by striking Rarden's 2007 motion and 2021 amendment for new trial | Striking was proper: 2021 filing unlawfully attempted to unilaterally amend a 14-year-old pending motion; trial court implicitly overruled the 2007 motion and did not abuse discretion | Rarden argued he has a right to file a motion for new trial and the court should not have struck his motion or amendment | Affirmed. 2021 amendment improper (no rule allows unilateral amendment after 14 years); 2007 motion may be treated as implicitly overruled given circumstances and prior void order; strike not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Rarden validly waived counsel as to both case numbers | Waiver on the record was knowing and voluntary for the case whose number was recited; files were handled together; Rarden never sought counsel later | Rarden argued omission of one case number from the waiver hearing means he never waived counsel in that case and his sentence is invalid | Overruled. Appellant made a detailed, knowing, voluntary waiver; his conduct belies the claim; prior decisions rejecting same argument support denial |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to perform required two-step analysis for lesser-included-offense instructions | Issues were raised in the improper 2021 amendment and/or could have been raised on direct appeal; res judicata and procedural posture bar relief | Rarden argued the court failed the two-step analysis and thus abused discretion by denying relief | Overruled. Claim raised in an improper amendment and barred by res judicata because it could have been raised on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Meyer, 63 Ohio App.3d 454 (appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction)
- State v. Bartrum, 121 Ohio St.3d 148 (discussing applicability of earlier version of Crim.R. 33 and limits on post-amendment analysis)