State v. Humphries , 2019 Ohio 2878 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Humphries, 
    2019-Ohio-2878
    .]
    COURT OF APPEALS
    STARK COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    STATE OF OHIO                                      JUDGES:
    Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J.
    Plaintiff-Appellee                         Hon. John W. Wise, J.
    Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
    -vs-
    Case No. 2018 CA 00157
    SIERRA D. HUMPHRIES
    Defendant-Appellant                        OPINION
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                        Criminal Appeal from the Canton Municipal
    Court, Case No. 2018 TRC 5166
    JUDGMENT:                                       Affirmed
    DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                         July 15, 2019
    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff-Appellee                          For Defendant-Appellant
    KRISTEN BATES-AYLWARD                           KEVIN J. BREEN
    CANTON LAW DIRECTOR                             KEVIN J. BREEN CO., LLC
    BEAU D. WENGER                                  3500 West Market Street
    ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR                            Suite 4
    218 Cleveland Avenue SW                         Fairlawn, Ohio 44333
    Canton, Ohio 44702
    Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00157                                                    2
    Wise, J.
    {¶1}   Appellant Sierra D. Humphries appeals her conviction for operating a
    vehicle while impaired, reckless operation, speeding, and no seat belt following a plea of
    no contest in the Canton Municipal Court.
    {¶2}   Appellee is the State of Ohio.
    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
    {¶3}   On June 25, 2018, Appellant Sierra D. Humphries was charged with
    violations of OVI, reckless operation, speeding and no seat belt.
    {¶4}   On July 13, 2018, Appellant Humphries filed a motion in limine to exclude a
    previous OVI conviction which occurred on December 3, 2008. In her motion, Appellant
    argued that her first OVI conviction was uncounseled and allegedly unconstitutional.
    {¶5}   At the hearing on the motion, Appellant did not introduce any evidence. The
    State introduced Appellant’s written waiver form for her first OVI conviction.
    {¶6}   By Judgment Entry filed August 17, 2018, the trial court overruled
    Appellant's motion stating she did not make a prima facie case that the prior conviction
    was unconstitutional as is required under State v. Thompson, 
    121 Ohio St.3d 250
    , 2009-
    Ohio-314.
    {¶7}   On August 21, 2018, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration attaching
    an affidavit in which she stated that she appeared pro se, was not counseled about her
    right to an attorney, and she did not understand her written waiver as it related to
    enhanceable offenses.
    {¶8}   By Judgment Entry filed September 19, 2018, the trial court overruled the
    motion for reconsideration.
    Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00157                                                       3
    {¶9}    On October 10, 2018, Appellant entered a plea of No Contest.
    {¶1}    It is from this conviction Appellant now appeals, raising the following errors
    for review:
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    {¶2}    “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS AUGUST 17, 2018 JUDGMENT
    ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR OVI
    CONVICTION.
    {¶3}    “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
    FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 17, 2018 JUDGMENT ENTRY BY ENTRY
    FILED SEPTEMBER 19, 2018.”
    I.
    {¶4}    Appellant herein argues the trial court erred in denying her motion in limine.
    We disagree.
    {¶5}    A motion in limine is a tentative, interlocutory, precautionary ruling by the
    trial court reflecting its anticipatory treatment of an evidentiary issue. State v. Grubb
    (1986), 
    28 Ohio St.3d 199
    , 200–201, 
    503 N.E.2d 142
    .
    {¶6}    A plea of no contest, however, waives the offender's right to appeal a trial
    court's ruling on a motion in limine. See State v. Pyro, 5th Dist. Delaware No.
    04CAA01009, 
    2004-Ohio-4768
    , ¶19 (“a no contest plea generally waives any claim of
    error with respect to an adverse ruling on a motion in limine”). “By entering a plea of no
    contest * * *, the defendant voluntarily waives the right to appeal the ruling on the motion
    [in limine].” State v. Engle, 
    74 Ohio St.3d 525
    , 529 (1996) (Resnick, J., concurring). See
    also State v. Guth, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2015-P-0083, 
    2016-Ohio-8221
    , ¶ 15; State v.
    Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00157                                                    4
    Felts, 4th Dist. Ross No. 13CA3407, 
    2014-Ohio-2378
    , ¶ 16, citing Engle at 528-529
    (Resnick, J., concurring) and State v. Hershner, 4th Dist. Athens No. 99CA58, 
    2000 WL 781094
    , *3 (June 8, 2000); State v. Monticue, 2d Dist. Miami No. 06-CA-33, 2007-Ohio-
    4615, ¶ 16, citing State v. Lewis, 
    164 Ohio App.3d 318
    , 
    2005-Ohio-5921
    , ¶ 6 (10th Dist.)
    and Engle at 529 (Resnick, J., concurring); State v. Oshodin, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-03-
    1169, 
    2004-Ohio-1186
    , ¶ 5-6; State v. Lamb, 3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-02-03, 2002-Ohio-
    4692, ¶ 6, citing State v. Kerr, 9th Dist. Medina No. 3205-M, 
    2002-Ohio-2095
    , ¶ 7-8 and
    State v. Schubert, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-85-22, 
    1986 WL 14413
    , *1 (Dec. 22, 1986).
    {¶7}   Therefore, by entering pleas of no contest, Appellant waived her right to
    appeal the trial court's ruling on her motion in limine.
    {¶8}   Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.
    II.
    {¶9}   In her second assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
    denying her motion for reconsideration. We disagree.
    {¶10} “The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for motions for
    reconsideration, therefore such motions are considered a nullity.” McCullough v. Catholic
    Diocese of Columbus, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 99CA77, 
    2000 WL 329658
    , *1 (Mar. 13,
    2000), citing Pitts v. Department of Transportation, 
    67 Ohio St.2d 378
    , 
    423 N.E.2d 1105
    (1981). Accord Merkle v. Merkle, 5th Dist. Licking No. 13-CA-31, 
    2014-Ohio-81
    ; Primmer
    v. Lipp, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 02-CA-94, 
    2003-Ohio-3577
    . “It follows that a judgment
    entered on a motion for reconsideration is also a nullity and a party cannot appeal from
    such a judgment.” McCullough, citing Kauder v. Kauder, 
    38 Ohio St.2d 265
    , 
    313 N.E.2d 797
     (1974); Primmer at ¶ 7.
    Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00157                                                        5
    {¶11} As Appellant is attempting to appeal the trial court's denial of her motion for
    reconsideration, which is a nullity, we lack jurisdiction to entertain Appellant's assigned
    error.
    {¶12} Accordingly, Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled.
    {¶13} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the Canton
    Municipal Court, Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
    By: Wise, J.
    Gwin, P. J., and
    Delaney, J., concur.
    ___________________________________
    HON. JOHN W. WISE
    ___________________________________
    HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
    ___________________________________
    HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
    JWW/d 0708
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2018 CA 00157

Citation Numbers: 2019 Ohio 2878

Judges: Wise

Filed Date: 7/15/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/16/2019