STATE OF OHIO v. YOLONZO A. GIBSON
C.A. No. 30078
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
May 18, 2022
[Cite as State v. Gibson, 2022-Ohio-1653.]
CALLAHAN, Judge.
COUNTY OF SUMMIT. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 20 11 3136
Dated: May 18, 2022
CALLAHAN, Judge.
{1} Appellant, Yolonzo Gibson, appeals his convictions by the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{2} On October 8, 2020, Mr. Gibson‘s mother placed a 911 call to report that her son was beating up his girlfriend. She informed the dispatcher that Mr. Gibson was mentally ill and was not taking his medication. When Tallmadge police officers arrived at the apartment building where Mr. Gibson lived in a unit next door to his mother and stepfather, they heard noise in Mr. Gibson‘s unit that quieted when they knocked and announced their presence. The officers spoke with Mr. Gibson‘s stepfather, who confirmed that they had placed the 911 call and urged them to enter Mr. Gibson‘s apartment forcibly.
{3} After approximately ten minutes, during which the officers repeatedly knocked and announced their presence, they kicked in the door to Mr. Gibson‘s apartment. Upon entering, they
{4} Mr. Gibson was indicted on one count of abduction in violation of
{5} During that pretrial, Mr. Gibson again insisted that he wished to represent himself. The trial court scheduled another pretrial for one week later. On December 8, 2020, Mr. Gibson appeared by video. He reiterated that he wanted to represent himself, and the trial court initiated a colloquy with him in that regard. Mr. Gibson also insisted that he did not want the trial court to appoint backup counsel. The State interjected during the colloquy and requested that the Court “inquire of Mr. Gibson who his caseworker is and what his medications were at the time of the incident” because “[h]is mother did indicate that he at the time had ADHD, schizophrenia and bipolar.” In response to this inquiry, Mr. Gibson stated that he had been diagnosed with major depression while in prison but denied that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and that he had previously been on medication.
{7} On February 23, 2021, the trial court conducted the next pretrial. The State represented that the competency evaluation had not been completed and suggested that the March 19, 2021, trial date should be continued. Mr. Gibson‘s appointed attorney informed the trial court that Mr. Gibson had twice refused to cooperate with the evaluation. In response, Mr. Gibson reiterated that he did not want to be represented by counsel. The trial court ordered him to be evaluated at North Coast Behavioral Health for twenty days as a prerequisite to considering his waiver of counsel.
{8} Mr. Gibson appeared again for a pretrial on June 1, 2021. At that time, the competency evaluation had been completed and provided to the trial court, but it had not yet been provided to appointed counsel. Noting that the evaluation found Mr. Gibson to be competent, the trial court granted a continuance at the request of appointed counsel. On June 8, 2021, the parties appeared for another pretrial. Appointed counsel informed the trial court that he had reviewed the competency evaluation with Mr. Gibson, who had “repeatedly said * * * that he wishes to represent himself in this matter.” Appointed counsel noted that he had reviewed the issue with Mr. Gibson, but Mr. Gibson was firm in his desire to represent himself. At that point, the trial court conducted a colloquy with Mr. Gibson regarding his waiver of counsel. Mr. Gibson also waived his right to a jury trial.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT‘S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL UNDER THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION[.]
{10} Mr. Gibson‘s second assignment of error argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated because he was not brought to trial within ninety days. In the alternative, he argues that the trial court committed plain error in this regard.
{11} Ohio‘s speedy trial statute,
{12} Speedy trial rights must be invoked “‘at or prior to the commencement of trial[]‘” in order to preserve error for purposes of appeal. State v. Tinley, 9th Dist. Medina No. 17CA0062-M, 2018-Ohio-2239, ¶ 10, quoting
{13}
{14}
{15} The trial court did not violate Mr. Gibson‘s right to a speedy trial. Because “error * * * [is] the starting point for a plain-error inquiry[,]” Mr. Gibson‘s second assignment of error is not well-taken. See State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 200 (2001);
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
ADMISSION OF THE BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE WAS A VIOLATION OF APPELLANT‘S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND WAS ALSO IMPERMISSIBLE HEARSAY AS NONE OF THE THREE WITNESSES TESTIFIED AT TRIAL[.]
{16} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Gibson maintains that the body camera footage that captured out-of-court statements made by his mother and stepfather and by J.K. was inadmissible hearsay evidence and that its admission violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause.
{17} Mr. Gibson did not object to the admission of the body camera footage at trial, and so he has forfeited all but plain error for purposes of this appeal. See generally
{18} Mr. Gibson‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
{19} Mr. Gibson‘s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit 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 Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
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. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
LYNNE S. CALLAHAN
FOR THE COURT
TEODOSIO, P. J.
SUTTON, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, assistant Prosecuting attorney, for Appellee.