State v. ReidState v. Reid
GRADY, P.J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant Tyrone Reid appeals from a final order that denied his motion filed pursuant to
{¶ 3} Defendant, an inmate at Marion Correctional Institute, seeks information concerning the investigation and prosecution of his criminal case that he believes may be contained in the records and files of police agencies, the prosecutor‘s office, or the court. On February 16, 2011, Defendant filed a motion asking the trial court to find, pursuant to
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 5} “THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE APPELLANT‘S REQUEST FOR JUSTICIABLE FINDING AFTER THE PLAINTIFF ADMITTED THAT ITS OFFICE WAS IN POSSESSION OF 911 TAPE RECORDINGS CONCERNING THIS CASE THAT IT NEVER TURNED OVER TO THE APPELLANT.”
THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 6} “THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE APPELLANT‘S REQUEST FOR JUSTICIABLE FINDING CONCERNING THE VEHICLE DRIVEN BY WILLIAM THOMAS (VICTIM) AND THE APPELLANT WHICH THE PLAINTIFF FOR TEN YEARS, INCLUDING AT TRIAL CLAIMED NEVER EXISTED, ALTHOUGH THE POLICE REPORT SHOWS THE VEHICLE DID EXIST AND THAT IT WAS IMPOUNDED BY THE DAYTON POLICE DEPARTMENT.”
{¶ 7} Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in not finding that the records he seeks are necessary to support a justiciаble claim. Defendant additionally argues that the State has admitted suppressing the recording of a 911 call made by Nettie Spidell.
{¶ 8} A public offiсe or person responsible for public records is not required to permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal conviction to inspect or copy any public record
{¶ 9} In denying Defendant‘s motion for a finding that the public records Defendant seeks are necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim by Defendant, the trial court concluded that Defendant does not have a justiciable claim. We agrеe. Since his conviction, Defendant has filed numerous motions, post-conviction actions and appeals. Defendant has exhausted his аvailable remedies and his conviction has become final. As a result, any claim for relief Defendant might present is barred by res judicata. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E. 2d 104 (1967). Claims barred by res judicata are not justiciable.
{¶ 10} While res judicata would not bar a post-appeal motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence, State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St.3d 1, 2011-Ohio-5028, 959 N.E.2d 516, the information Defendant seeks regarding recorded 911 calls to police and the vehicle police impounded is not newly discovered, because it wаs either provided to defense counsel at trial or referenced
{¶ 11} With respect to the 911 calls police received after thе shooting that led to the deaths of Cedron Brown and William Thomas, Defendant claims that the police report he attached to his motion dеmonstrates that the State destroyed or suppressed a recorded 911 call made by Nettie Spidell. The trial court found that no such thing is demonstrаted because the record demonstrates that, prior to trial, Defendant was provided with all tape recorded 911 calls Dayton pоlice had. See: Trial Court‘s August 6, 2007 Decision overruling Defendant‘s motion for expert assistance. Furthermore, the failure to preserve all of the 911 calls is hardly sinister, because typically tapes of 911 calls are recycled pursuant to Dayton Police Department policy after sixty days. Id. More importantly, there is no evidence that whatever Ms. Spidell may have said when she called 911 would have exonerated Defеndant or aided his defense. Therefore, Defendant has not shown that the recordings of the 911 calls he seeks, if they exist, are necessary to support a justiciable claim. Defendant has failed to satisfy his statutory duty under
{¶ 12} With respect to Defendant‘s request that the trial court
{¶ 13} Because Defendant has not demonstrated that he has a justiciable claim or that the public records he sеeks are necessary to support that claim, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Defendant‘s motion seeking a justiciablе claim finding pursuant to
{¶ 14} Defendant‘s first and third assignments of error are overruled.
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 15} “THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE APPELLANT‘S REQUEST FOR JUSTICIABLE FINDING AFTER IT ENGAGED IN EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AND ALLOWED THE PLAINTIFF TO DRAFT THE TRIAL COURT‘S OPINION.”
{¶ 16} Defendant argues that the assistant prosecutor who wrote the State‘s memorandum contra Defendant‘s motion requesting a finding of a justiciable claim, also authored the trial court‘s May 4, 2011 decision denying Defendant‘s mоtion. No such thing has been demonstrated on this record. The mere fact that the trial court found the State‘s memorandum persuasive and incorрorated parts of it into the court‘s decision does not demonstrate that
{¶ 17} Defendant‘s second assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
FAIN, J., And FROELICH, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Carley J. Ingram, Esq.
Tyrone Reid
Hon. Timothy N. O‘Connell