State v. DiamondState v. Diamond
TEODOSIO, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Ronald Diamond, appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Mr. Diamond was indicted on: (1) one count of aggravated murder, in violation of
{¶3} Originally, after pleading not guilty to the indictment, Mr. Diamond changed his plea to no contest on each count and specification in the indictment, and the trial court found him guilty. Further, the trial court merged the counts as allied offenses of similar import, and the State elected to proceed to sentencing on the aggravated murder conviction. Mr. Diamond was sentenced to a prison term of life without parole to be served consecutively with a three-year prison term on the firearm specification. On August 30, 2021, the trial court issued a sentencing entry reflecting Mr. Diamond‘s plea and sentence. Notably, Mr. Diamond did not file a direct appeal from the August 30, 2021 sentencing entry.
{¶4} Subsequent to his imprisonment and after the time had passed for filing a direct appeal, Mr. Diamon filed several pro se motions including those styled as: (1) a motion to correct the record with a final, appealable order; and (2) a motion for the appointment of counsel. In these motions, Mr. Diamond argued: (1) the August 30, 2021 sentencing entry lacked a time-stamp of the clerk of courts and was therefore not a final, appealable order; and (2) for the appointment of appellate counsel to file either a direct or delayed appeal. On January 4, 2022, the trial court denied both motions. In so doing, the trial court explained the sentencing entry did have the clerk of court‘s time-stamp of August 30, 2021, and Mr. Diamond pointed to no statute or case law giving him the right to court-appointed appellate counsel “after his no-contest plea.”
{¶5} Mr. Diamond now appeals the trial court‘s decision raising two assignments of error for our review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE
[MR. DIAMOND‘S] SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ISSUE A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE THAT IS FINAL AND APPEALABLE
{¶6} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Diamond argues the August 30, 2021 sentencing entry is not a final, appealable order because it lacks a time-stamp from the clerk of courts. For the following reasons, we disagree.
{¶7} The Supreme Court of Ohio, in State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, paragraph one of the syllabus, held a judgment of conviction complies with
{¶8} Here, the record reveals the sentencing entry, in fact, was time-stamped by the clerk of courts and entered upon the journal on August 30, 2021. Additionally, the August 30, 2021 sentencing entry includes the fact of conviction, the sentence, and the signature of the trial judge, making it a final order subject to appeal under
{¶9} Accordingly, Mr. Diamond‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR TWO
[MR. DIAMOND‘S] SUBSTANTIAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN, PRESUMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IS NOT APPEALABLE, THE TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO APPOINT COUNSEL FOR DIRECT APPEAL; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO APPOINT COUNSEL TO FILE FOR DELAYED APPEAL.
{¶10} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Diamond argues the trial court erred in failing to appoint appellate counsel, pursuant to his post-conviction motion, for either a direct or delayed appeal. We, however, are not persuaded by Mr. Diamond‘s argument.
{¶11}
{¶12} As indicated above, the August 30, 2021 sentencing entry is a final, appealable order. Therefore, Mr. Diamond‘s time to file a direct appeal expired on September 29, 2021. However, in his appellate brief, Mr. Diamond stated: “[a]ppellant submits that if he had known he had the right to appeal, he would have. And * * * the fact that the trial court stated in its [January 4, 2022 order] that the right to appeal was not applicable in this case indicates that appellant was
{¶13} Accordingly, Mr. Diamond‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶14} Mr. Diamond‘s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
THOMAS A. TEODOSIO
FOR THE COURT
CARR, J.
SUTTON, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
RONALD DIAMOND, pro se, Appellant.
J.D. TOMLINSON, Prosecuting Attorney, and C. RICHLEY RALEY, JR., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.