State v. StrunkState v. Strunk
James B. Strunk, 517-604, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 5500, Chillicothe, Ohio 45601, defendant-appellant, pro se
O P I N I O N
HENDRICKSON, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, James B. Strunk, appeals a decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for relief from a forfeiture judgment. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
{¶2} In March 2006, appellant was convicted on two counts of receiving stolen property in violation of
{¶3} This court affirmed appellant‘s convictions on direct appeal. State v. Strunk, Warren App. No. CA2006-04-046, 2007-Ohio-683. In August 2010, appellant filed a
{¶4} Appellant timely appeals the trial court‘s denial of his motion for relief, raising one assignment of error.
{¶5} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶6} “THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED IT‘S DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE MOTION TO RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT PURSUANT TO CIVIL RULE 60(B)(5), BY MAKING A RULING THAT IGNORES OHIO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND OHIO SUPREME COURT PRECEDENCE.” [SIC]
{¶7} Appellant maintains that he was entitled to relief from the forfeiture judgment because it was void. In particular, appellant protests that the indictment did not contain a specification of forfeiture regarding the truck in derogation of
{¶8} As stated, one of the bases cited by the trial court for denying appellant‘s motion for relief was the inapplicability of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure to criminal
{¶9} We must consider whether appellant was justified in resorting to
{¶10} The Schlee court ruled that “[c]ourts may recast irregular motions into whatever category necessary to identify and establish the criteria by which the motion should be judged.” Schlee at ¶12. A motion qualifies as a PCR petition if it (1) is filed after a defendant‘s direct appeal, (2) claims a denial of the defendant‘s constitutional rights, (3) seeks to render the judgment void, and (4) asks the trial court to vacate the judgment. Id., quoting State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 160, 1997-Ohio-304. When faced with such a motion, it is not necessary to look to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure as applied by
{¶11} When reviewing the four Reynolds elements, it is clear that appellant‘s
{¶12} In order to be timely,
{¶13} In accordance with
{¶14} In the present matter, appellant failed to argue the existence of either of the prerequisites for entertaining an untimely PCR petition. That is, appellant neglected to argue that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering facts necessary for his claim for relief or that a newly-recognized federal or state right has been recognized and applies retroactively to persons in his position. Hence, appellant did not satisfy the
{¶15} We conclude that the trial court properly denied appellant‘s motion for relief from judgment, although for the wrong reason. The court was incorrect in basing its denial on the purported inapplicability of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure to appellant‘s criminal case. Nonetheless, a proper decision by a lower court that is based upon improper grounds is not cause for reversal. State v. Lozier, 101 Ohio St.3d 161, 2004-Ohio-732, ¶46. In fact, a reviewing court is without authority to reverse a correct judgment simply because it was reached for the wrong reason. Id. Accordingly, while the trial court should have recast appellant‘s motion as a PCR petition, we uphold the denial of the motion as a correct judgment. See id. See, also, State v. Weisenbarger, Preble App. No. CA2001-08-014 at 3, 2002-Ohio-291.
{¶16} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶17} Judgment affirmed.
BRESSLER, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.