State v. SchleeState v. Schlee
{¶ 2} The instant matter arises from the conviction and sentence of appellant on one count of aggravated murder for the murder of Frank Carroll ("Carroll") in 1980, in which appellant was given a life sentence. A brief review of the procedural history of this case is necessary.
{¶ 3} On September 28, 1992, appellant was initially indicted by the Lake County Grand Jury on one count of aggravated murder in violation of
{¶ 4} Appellant appealed his conviction to this court. InState v. Schlee (Dec. 23, 1994), 11th Dist. No. 93-L-082,
{¶ 5} Subsequently, appellant filed two motions for postconviction relief. His first motion for postconviction relief was filed on September 23, 1996, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Pursuant to its May 15, 1997 judgment entry, the trial court overruled appellant's petition without holding an evidential hearing. Appellant appealed to this court. In Statev. Schlee (Dec. 31, 1998), 11th Dist. No. 97-L-121,
{¶ 6} While the foregoing appeal was still pending, appellant filed a second petition for postconviction relief on December 18, 1997, alleging that he had newly discovered evidence to prove that appellee, the state of Ohio, committed a
{¶ 7} With respect to appellant's first petition for postconviction relief, on remand, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered a judgment entry on June 21, 1999. In that entry, the trial court addressed the three claims that were not barred by res judicata, and ultimately dismissed appellant's petition without holding an evidential hearing because he failed to demonstrate substantive grounds for relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Appellant timely filed an appeal on July 21, 1999. This court in State v.Schlee (Sept. 22, 2000), 11th Dist. No. 99-L-112,
{¶ 8} On July 2, 2002, appellant filed a motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court granted this motion on August 21, 2002. Appellee filed a notice of appeal and a motion for leave to appeal on September 20, 2002, but this court denied its motion on March 24, 2003. On June 19, 2003, the trial court set a trial date of November 3, 2003. On October 3, 2003, upon joint motion, the trial court continued the new trial until March 8, 2004.2
{¶ 9} The new trial began as scheduled on March 8, 2004. Prior to commencement of the trial, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the charge on speedy trial grounds. The trial court denied appellant's motion and proceeded with the trial. On March 19, 2004, the jury returned a guilty verdict. On March 26, 2004, appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after fifteen years.
{¶ 10} On April 2, 2004, appellant filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled by the trial court on April 15, 2004, after a hearing. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. This court affirmed appellant's conviction in State v. Schlee, 11th Dist No. 2004-L-070,
{¶ 11} On October 26, 2004, appellant filed an application for DNA testing. Pursuant to its November 16, 2004 judgment entry, the trial court denied his application. The trial court determined, pursuant to
{¶ 12} On March 16, 2005, appellant filed a pro se motion for relief from judgment, pursuant to
{¶ 13} Pursuant to its June 14, 2005 judgment entry, the trial court determined the following: appellee's motion to dismiss was granted; appellant's motion for relief from judgment was dismissed; appellant's motion to have appellee's motion to dismiss was denied; appellant's motion for default judgment was denied; and appellant's motion to strike and renew his motion for default judgment was denied. It is from that judgment that appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and makes the following assignments of error:5
{¶ 14} "[1.] The trial court erred and/or abused its discretion to the prejudice of [appellant] when it ruled on his
{¶ 15} "[2.] The trial court erred and/or abused its discretion to the prejudice of [appellant] when it recast his
{¶ 16} "[3.] The trial court erred and/or abused its discretion to the prejudice of [appellant] when it granted [appellee's] untimely responses."
{¶ 17} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion when it ruled on his
{¶ 18} In his second assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion when it recast his
{¶ 19} Because appellant's first and seconds assignments of error are interrelated, we will address them in a consolidated fashion.
{¶ 20} "`[W]ith respect to a
{¶ 21} This court stated in State v. Harrison, 11th Dist. No. 2004-P-0068,
{¶ 22} "Ohio courts have taken a variety of approaches regarding the application of
{¶ 23} "`If no procedure is specifically prescribed by rule, the court may proceed in any lawful manner not inconsistent with these rules of criminal procedure, and shall look to the rules of civil procedure and to the applicable law if no rule of criminal procedure exists.'
{¶ 24} "Accordingly, in certain circumstances,
{¶ 25} The Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Reynolds
(1997),
{¶ 26} In the case at bar, the trial court properly determined that appellant's pro se motion for relief from judgment, despite its caption, was really a petition for postconviction relief under
{¶ 27} In its June 14, 2005 judgment entry, the trial court, citing to Reynolds, supra, stated that "because [appellant's] motion for relief from judgment pursuant to
{¶ 28} Additionally, the trial court stated that "
{¶ 29} We note that appellant's pro se motion for relief from judgment includes alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct occurring prior to his 1993 and 2004 jury trials. Appellant had an opportunity in his direct DNA appeal and/or post-conviction exercises, which was a completely separate subject matter having no relationship whatsoever with the issues raised in this appeal, to address the alleged prejudicial and constitutional violations committed by appellee. See Reynolds, Singerman, and Walden,
supra. The trial court properly did not resort to the Civil Rules of Procedure, and treated appellant's
{¶ 30} Appellant's first and second assignments of error are without merit.
{¶ 31} In his third assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted appellee's untimely responses, filed on April 8, 2005, and on May 5, 2005. He claims that appellee failed to serve him directly with those responses. Appellant stresses that the trial court erred when it allowed appellee to put its untimely responses on the record, and when it considered them in making its decision. He argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to take any action or the authority to allow appellee to file and serve its late responses.
{¶ 32}
{¶ 33} In the instant matter, the record establishes that appellee complied with its service requirements, pursuant to
{¶ 34} Again, on March 16, 2005, appellant filed a pro se motion for relief from judgment pursuant to
{¶ 35} Appellant's third assignment of error is without merit.
{¶ 36} For the foregoing reasons, appellant's assignments of error are not well-taken. The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
William M. O'Neill, J., Diane V. Grendell, J., concur.