State v. LittlepageState v. Littlepage
Daniel Littlepage, pro se.
Per Curiam.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Daniel Littlepage appeals the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgments overruling his “Motion to Correct Sentence” and “Motion for Grand Jury Testimony and Evidence [and] Disclosure of Proceedings.” We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
{¶2} Littlepage was convicted of aggravated murder in January 2014. He unsuccessfully challenged his conviction on direct appeal and in postconviction filings between 2014 and 2017. See State v. Littlepage, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140760 (Dec. 4, 2015); State v. Littlepage, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140574 (Aug. 26, 2015), appeals not accepted, 144 Ohio St.3d 1429, 2015-Ohio-5225, 42 N.E.3d 764, and 145 Ohio St.3d 1461, 2016-Ohio-2807, 49 N.E.3d 322; State v. Littlepage, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160918, 2018-Ohio-1382.
Motion to Correct Sentence
{¶3} In the case numbered C-170157, Littlepage presents a single assignment of error challenging the common pleas court’s judgment overruling his February 2017 “Motion to Correct Sentence.” In that motion, he sought correction of his sentence on the ground that it was void because the trial court had failed to make statutorily mandated findings. We do not reach the merits of the assignment of error, because we have no jurisdiction to review the judgment overruling the motion.
{¶4} No common pleas court jurisdiction. Littlepage did not specify in his motion a statute or rule under which the relief sought may be afforded. The common pleas court was thus left to “recast” the motion “into whatever category necessary to identify and establish the criteria by which the motion should be judged.” State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153, 2008-Ohio-545, 882 N.E.2d 431, ¶ 12 and syllabus.
{¶5} But the motion was not reviewable under the standards provided by
{¶6} We, therefore, conclude that the common pleas court had no jurisdiction to entertain Littlepage’s “Motion to Correct Sentence.”
{¶7} No appeals court jurisdiction. Moreover, this court has no jurisdiction to review the common pleas court’s judgment overruling the motion.
{¶8} The common pleas court’s judgment overruling Littlepage’s motion to correct his sentence is not a judgment of conviction. Therefore, the judgment overruling the motion is plainly not reviewable under the jurisdiction conferred upon an appeals court by
{¶10} An appeals court also has jurisdiction under
{¶11} The common pleas court’s entry overruling Littlepage’s “Motion to Correct Sentence” was not reviewable by this court under
{¶12} Not correctable under the jurisdiction to correct a void judgment. Finally, the sentencing error alleged in Littlepage’s “Motion to Correct
Motion for Transcript of Grand Jury Proceedings
{¶13} In the case numbered C-170207, Littlepage presents a single assignment of error challenging the common pleas court’s judgment overruling his April 2017 “Motion for Grand Jury Testimony and Evidence [and] Disclosure of Proceedings.” He sought in his motion an order granting him “access” to the record of the proceedings before the grand jury leading to his indictment. We do not reach the merits of this assignment of error, because, again, we lack jurisdiction to review the overruling of the motion.
{¶14} No common pleas court jurisdiction. Littlepage submitted his motion “pursuant to [R.C.] 2939.19 and Crim.R. 6(E)” and characterized his request for disclosure of grand jury proceedings as “the equivalent of a demand for discovery * * * in accordance with Crim.R. 16.” To demonstrate his “particularized need” for the record of those proceedings, he alleged that his conviction had been the product of his trial counsel’s ineffectiveness, prosecutorial misconduct, and other due-process violations, and that he was actually innocent of the offense to which he had pled guilty.
{¶15}
{¶16} The Courts of Appeals for the Eighth, Tenth, and Fifth Appellate Districts have held that a trial court has no jurisdiction to order disclosure of grand jury proceedings when no proceeding within that court’s jurisdiction is pending. State v. Harper, 5th Dist. Guernsey No. 13 CA 15, 2013-Ohio-3897, ¶ 19; State v. Russell, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP–1325, 2006-Ohio-5945, ¶ 10; State v. Short, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 83492, 2004-Ohio-2695, ¶ 7. Compelled by the reasoning of those decisions, we hold that the common pleas court had no jurisdiction to entertain Littlepage’s “Motion for Grand Jury Testimony and Evidence [and] Disclosure of Proceedings,” when it was not filed in a pending proceeding within that court’s jurisdiction.
{¶17} No appeals court jurisdiction. Nor does this court have jurisdiction to review the common pleas court’s judgment denying the relief sought in Littlepage’s “Motion for Grand Jury Testimony and Evidence [and] Disclosure of Proceedings.”
{¶18} The motion sought an order requiring disclosure of the grand jury proceedings leading to the indictment upon which Littlepage was convicted; it did not seek relief from that conviction. Therefore, the judgment overruling the motion is not reviewable under our jurisdiction under
{¶20} Finally, the entry overruling the motion was not reviewable by this court under the jurisdiction conferred under
Appeals Dismissed
{¶21} We hold that we are without jurisdiction to review the common pleas court’s judgments overruling Littlepage’s “Motion to Correct Sentence” and “Motion for Grand Jury Testimony and Evidence [and] Disclosure of Proceedings.” Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals.
Appeals dismissed.
CUNNINGHAM, P.J., ZAYAS and MYERS, JJ.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.