STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, - vs - EMMANUEL ELDER, Defendant-Appellant.
CASE NO. 2013-L-128
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
2014-05-27
[Cite as State v. Elder, 2014-Ohio-2567.]
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.
Criminal Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 13 CR 000415. Judgment: Affirmed.
Emmanuel Elder, pro se, PID# A644514, Richland Correctional Institution, 1001 Oliversburg Road, P.O. Box 8107, Mansfield, OH 44901 (Defendant-Appellant).
OPINION
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Emmanuel Elder, appeals from the Judgment Entry of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, denying his Motion for New Trial. The issues to be determined by this court are whether а trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear a case when the defendant is properly indicted, following the issuance of a traffic ticket and a complaint for a felony charge; whether a trial court can enter a not guilty plea on a defendant’s behalf when he refuses to do so; whether documentary evidence proving
{¶2} On Marсh 8, 2013, a Complaint was filed against Elder in the Willoughby Municipal Court, asserting that he violated
{¶3} On June 4, 2013, a written pleа of “not guilty,” signed by Elder, was entered in the Willoughby Municipal Court.
{¶4} On June 12, 2013, the municipal court issued a Judgment Entry, noting that a preliminary hearing was conducted and there was probable cause to believe a felony offense was committed by Elder, and he was bound over to the Lake County Grand Jury.
{¶5} On July 19, 2013, the Lake County Grand Jury issued an Indictment, charging Elder with the following: Failure to Comply with Order or Signal of Police Officer (Count One), a felony of the third degree, in violation of
{¶7} Prior to trial, Elder filed various motions, including multiple motions to dismiss the charges, which were denied.
{¶8} A jury trial was held on September 17-18, 2013. Pursuant to the testimony presented, Elder was driving his vehicle on March 7, 2013, in Willoughby Hills, when Patrolman Erik Kupchik observed that his vеhicle had only one functioning headlight and that the license plate was not properly illuminated. Upon calling the vehicle into dispatch, Patrolman Kupchik also learned that its registration was expired and that Elder had an active warrant from the Ashtabula Police Deрartment. A stop was initiated and, during the course of the stop, Elder drove away and “fled.” Patrolman Kupchik pursued Elder in a chase that began in Willoughby Hills and continued into several cities in Cuyahoga County, reaching speeds of up to 90 miles an hour.
{¶9} Following the jury trial, Elder was found guilty on Counts One, Fоur, and Five. The court found Elder guilty on the remaining two counts, which were minor misdemeanors. On September 24, 2013, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry memorializing the verdict.
{¶10} On the same date, a Judgment Entry of Sentence was filed, ordering that Elder serve a term of 30 months for Failure to Comply and 30 days for Obstructing Official Business, to be served concurrently. Elder was also ordered to pay fines on the remaining counts, totaling $100.
{¶12} Elder timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error:
{¶13} “[The] trial court abused [its] discretion for failing to find it lacked personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction due to failing to apply the controlling laws of
{¶14} This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of Elder’s Motion for New Trial. “The allowance or denial of a motion for a new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed save an abuse of discretion.” State v. Elersic, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2007-L-104, 2008-Ohio-2121, ¶ 10, citing State v. Hill, 64 Ohio St.3d 313, 333, 595 N.E.2d 884 (1992). “[T]he discretionary decision to grant a motion for a new trial is an extraordinary measure which should be used only when the evidence presented weighs heavily in favor of the moving party.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Hake, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2007-T-0091, 2008-Ohio-1332, ¶ 30.
{¶15} “A new trial may be granted on motion of the defendant for any of the follоwing causes affecting materially his substantial rights: * * * [i]rregularity in the proceedings, or in any order or ruling of the court, or abuse of discretion by the court,
{¶16} Elder raises multiple issues undеr his sole assignment of error, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting each of these arguments. First, issues A, J, and K relate to whether the municipal court properly followed
{¶17} As an initial matter, the record in the court of common pleas includes the complaint fоr Failure to Comply with Order or Signal of Police Officer filed originally in the Willoughby Municipal Court. The misdemeanor traffic matters were filed in a separate case, 13TRD04272. Thus, as to the criminal matter initiated when Elder was bound over, the court did transmit the record appropriately.
{¶18} Importantly, regarding Elder’s assertion that no proper ticket or complaint for the traffic offenses was filed within the court of common pleas, we emphasize that he was indicted by the Lake County Grand Jury for the traffic offenses, as well as the additional offenses. Although he was initially givеn tickets for the traffic offenses, which is evident from the fact that Elder himself attached these tickets to documents filed, as the trial court emphasized, he was bound over on the felony charge and the indictment
{¶19} In issue B, Elder appears to argue that all of the counts against him should have been documented on a traffic ticket, pursuant to the Ohio Traffic Rules. See
{¶20} It follows, then, that issues C and D, which relate to the court’s lack of jurisdiction based on the foregoing issues, have no merit. Since the charges were
{¶21} In issue E, Elder argues that his convictions were obtained without the trial court, the grand jury, and himself being apprised of the time, date, location, and statutory section numbers of the offеnses. It is clear, however, that the grand jury was apprised of the necessary information, given that it was able to state in the Indictment the date and county of the offenses, as well as the statutes that were violated, based on the evidence that was presented to support the Indictment. The Indictment, as well as the subsequent bill of particulars, apprised Elder of the necessary information to be fully aware of the charges against him. This actually goes beyond the requirement of the traffic rules that a complaint/ticket “simply needs to advise the defendant of the offense with which he is charged, in a manner that can be readily understood by a person making a reasonable attempt to understand.” Barberton v. O’Connor, 17 Ohio St.3d 218, 221, 478 N.E.2d 803 (1985).
{¶22} Similarly, in issue G, Elder argues that no documentation was offered to prove that the offenses for which he was convicted were committed within the jurisdiction of the trial court. As the trial court noted in denying the Motion for New Trial, Elder cites to no law that required the State to present documentation rather than testimony as to this fact. Patrolman Kupchik testified that the crimes that precipitated his stop of the vеhicle, as well as the beginning of the pursuit of Elder’s fleeing vehicle, occurred in Willoughby Hills, within Lake County. Both the Complaint and ticket submitted into the record by Elder himself also show that the incident leading to the charges happened within Lake County.
{¶24} In issue H, Elder asserts that “no affidavit pursuant to
{¶25} In issue I, Elder asserts that “the record reflects that the appellant filed several motions to dismiss counts 1, 2, 3, and 4.” No argument or error for consideration by this court is presented.
{¶27} In issue M, Elder asserts that structural error occurred, and the trial court did not have the ability to “function as a reliable vehicle for the determination of guilt or innocence.” Structural errors are сonstitutional defects that “‘defy analysis by “harmless error” standards’ because they ‘affect[] the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply [being] an error in the trial process itself.’” State v. Fisher, 99 Ohio St.3d 127, 2003-Ohio-2761, 789 N.E.2d 222, ¶ 9, quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-310, 111 S.Ct.1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991). Such errors permeate “the entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end,” which prevents the trial court from serving “its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118, 2004-Ohio-297, 802 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 17.
{¶28} Here, Elder fails to explain what would warrant a finding that a constitutional defect existed. He presents no specific argumentation in support of the claim that a struсtural error occurred. “An assignment of error must be sufficiently specific that the court of appeals is not required to guess as to the error challenged.” State v. Dudas, 11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2008-L-109 and 2008-L-110, 2009-Ohio-1001, ¶
{¶29} Finally, regarding issue N, Elder asserts that his convictions were the result of an unreasonable search and seizure, and that his right to a full, fair trial was violated. He presents no further cognizable argument as to why these rights were violated or how he is entitled to a new trial under this issue and, thus, it lacks merit. See Id.
{¶30} Based on the foregoing, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Elder’s Motion for New Trial.
{¶31} Elder’s sole assignment of error is without merit.
{¶32} For the foregoing reasons, the Judgment Entry of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, denying Elder’s Motion for New Trial, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against appellant.
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.,
COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J.,
concur.