State v. Davis ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Davis, 2023-Ohio-513.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2023-L-009
CITY OF MENTOR, 2023-L-010
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the
Mentor Municipal Court
- vs -
KENNETH RAY DAVIS, JR., Trial Court Nos. 2022 CRA 01371 B
2022 CRA 01371 A
Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM
OPINION
Decided: February 21, 2023
Judgment: Appeals dismissed
Joseph P. Szeman, City of Mentor Director of Law, The Matchworks Building, 8500
Station Street, Suite 245, Mentor, OH 44060 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Kenneth Ray Davis, Jr., pro se, 1460 East 196th Street, Euclid, OH 44117 (Defendant-
Appellant)
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Kenneth Ray Davis, Jr., pro se, filed a notice of appeal on
January 17, 2023, from a judgment entry issued by the Mentor Municipal Court on
January 9, 2023, which denied his motion to vacate the court’s bind over order.
{¶2} On December 16, 2022, appellant was charged with receiving stolen
property, in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A). After the municipal court held a preliminary
hearing, probable cause was found, and the court ordered that appellant be bound over
to the court of common pleas on January 5, 2023.
{¶3} Pursuant to Crim.R. 5(B)(4)(a) and (5):
{¶4} “Preliminary Hearing in Felony Cases; Procedure.
{¶5} “* * *.
{¶6} “Upon conclusion of all the evidence * * * the court shall do one of the
following:
{¶7} “(a) Find that there is probable cause to believe the crime alleged * * * has
been committed and that the defendant committed it, and bind the defendant over to the
court of common pleas * * *.
{¶8} “(5) Any finding requiring the accused to stand trial on any charge shall be
based solely on the presence of substantial credible evidence thereof. No appeal shall
lie from such decision * * *.”
{¶9} Appellant’s attempt to appeal the bind-over order is precluded by the Ohio
Criminal Rules. Thus, appellant cannot challenge the bind over to the court of common
pleas. See State v. Miller, 9th Dist. Summit No. 12198, 1986 WL 1127, *2 (Jan. 22, 1986).
(Citing the foregoing criminal rule and holding an appellant “cannot challenge the trial
court’s finding of probable cause and subsequent binding over to the grand jury for
indictment.”)
{¶10} Appeals dismissed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,
concur.
2
Case Nos. 2023-L-009 and 2023-L-010