State v. BrownState v. Brown
Felix O. Brown, Jr., pro se, PID: A312676, Lorain Correctional Institution, 2075 South Avon-Beldon Road, Grafton, OH 44044 (Defendant-Appellant).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Felix O. Brown, Jr., appeals the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas denying his “Civil Rules of Procedure Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, or in the alternative, Crim.R. 47 motion to vacate judgment” and his “motion for leave to amend Civil Rule 60(B)/Criminal Rule 47 motion pursuant to Civil Rule 15(A).” For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgments to deny such motions.
{¶3} On September 20, 2011, appellant filed a motion for leave to amend his hybrid
{¶4} Appellant now appeals, and as his assignments of error, he alleges the following:
{¶5} [1.] The trial court abused its discretion, to the prejudice of appellant, thereby committing reversible error when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s motion for relief from
{¶6} [2.] The trial court abused its discretion to the prejudice of appellant, thereby committed reversible error when it refused to hold an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s motion for relief from judgment/motion to vacate judgment, thus mandating a reversal and remand for the purpose of holding said hearing in direct regard to the second of the two combined misnomers. The misnomers of Appellant’s father’s address, 1229 North Road, Apartment #238 being negligently assigned as Appellant’s address where Appellant’s actual address was 1231 North Road, Apartment #278.
{¶7} [3.] The trial court abused its discretion and prejudiced appellant thereby committed reversible error, when it denied or merely refused to consider appellant’s motion for leave to amend his civil rule 60(B)/criminal rule 47 motion – which contained two additional claims for relief. Thus mandating a reversal and remand for purpose of determining and granting ‘motion for leave to amend.’
{¶8} [4.] The trial court abused its discretion and prejudiced appellant, thereby committed reversible error, when it denied or merely refused to consider appellant’s motion for leave to amend his civil
{¶9} Sixteen years into his sentence, appellant is now attempting to vacate his conviction by alleging misnomer—arguing both his name and his address were improper on the indictment. Appellant sought relief from his convictions pursuant to
{¶10}
{¶11} Courts may recast irregular motions into whatever category necessary to identify and establish the criteria by which the motion should be judged. State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235, 2002-Ohio 3993, 773 N.E.2d 522, citing State v. Reynolds (1999), 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 1997-Ohio-304, 679 N.E.2d 1131. In Reynolds, we concluded that a motion styled ‘Motion to Correct or Vacate Sentence’ met the definition of a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to
{¶12} In overruling appellant’s motion, the trial court noted it was appellant’s duty, not the trial court’s, to correct any errors in his own name which appeared in the indictment. Appellant failed to do so. In its entry, the trial court recognized that it is not the duty of the trial court “to undo what amounts to an invited error sixteen years post trial.” The trial court also acknowledged that appellant did not suffer prejudice at trial; it noted that appellant “presented no authority to show any nexus between this alleged Misnomer and a void conviction.”
{¶13} In disposing of appellant’s motion, however, the lower court failed to address how it treated appellant’s motion—as a
{¶14} The decision to grant or deny a
{¶15} Relief from judgment may be granted pursuant to
{¶16} On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under
{¶17} Regarding the moving party’s obligations for a
{¶18} To prevail on a motion brought under
{¶19} Appellant has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under
{¶20} Appellant’s first and second assignments of error are without merit.
{¶21} In his third and fourth assignments of error, appellant alleges the trial court erred in failing to allow him to amend his
{¶22} Upon a review of appellant’s motion to amend, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion in its denial. In his motion to amend, appellant argued the trial court erred in instructing the jury. As appellant could have raised this argument in his direct appeal, it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
{¶23} Appellant’s third and fourth assignments of error are without merit.
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.,
concur.