State v. Sands
2017 Ohio 5860
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Joseph A. Sands was convicted in 2006 after a jury trial of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity and related conspiracy counts tied to plots to murder and commit arson; he received an aggregate 20-year state sentence.
- Sands’ convictions were affirmed on direct appeal and related federal convictions resulted in a separate sentence.
- In December 2016, Sands filed a motion for leave to file a motion for arrest of judgment in the Lake County Common Pleas Court, claiming the indictment was defective and failed to state offenses or place him on notice.
- The trial court denied the motion as untimely and on the merits; Sands appealed that denial.
- The appellate court reviewed timeliness, res judicata, and whether the indictment sufficiently identified predicate offenses for RICO-type and conspiracy counts.
- The court affirmed: the motion was untimely, barred by res judicata, and the indictment adequately described the predicate overt acts supporting the charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Crim.R. 34 motion | — | Sands: motion was permissible despite timing | Denied — motion filed ~10 years after conviction, not within 14 days; untimely |
| Res judicata bar | — | Sands: may relitigate indictment defects now | Denied — res judicata bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal (Perry) |
| Sufficiency of indictment for pattern of corrupt activity | State: indictment must identify predicate offenses | Sands: indictment failed to state elements or give notice | Denied — indictment contained precise descriptions of predicate overt acts; adequate notice (Burkitt) |
| Sufficiency of indictment for conspiracy counts | State: indictment must identify object and overt acts | Sands: indictment defective as to elements | Denied — indictment met requirements for conspiracy charge (Childs) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burkitt, 89 Ohio App.3d 214 (1993) (indictment for pattern of corrupt activity must identify predicate offenses)
- State v. Childs, 88 Ohio St.3d 194 (2000) (conspiracy indictment must identify the object and overt acts)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (final conviction bars relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)