State v. Hartman ( 2014 )

[Cite as State v. Hartman, 2014-Ohio-2226.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF MEDINA )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 13CA0018-M
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
MATTHEW HARTMAN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 09-CR-0229
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: May 27, 2014
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Matthew Hartman, appeals the judgment of the Medina County Court
of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} On June 2, 2009, the Medina County Grand Jury indicted Hartman on one count
of aggravated burglary. The matter proceeded to trial, and a jury found Hartman guilty of the
sole count in the indictment. The trial court sentenced Hartman to a five-year term of
incarceration. Hartman appealed to this Court, and we reversed his conviction based on the trial
court’s admission of a prejudicial 911 call. State v Hartman, 9th Dist. Medina Nos. 10CA0026-
M, 10CA0031-M, 2012-Ohio-745.
{¶3} On remand, Hartman was again tried before a jury. The jury found Hartman
guilty and he was again sentenced to five years imprisonment. The sentencing entry from the
second trial was issued on May 25, 2012. Hartman appealed, and this Court issued a decision on
2
October 7, 2013, reversing Hartman’s conviction based on prejudicial comments made by the
State during closing arguments. State v. Hartman, 9th Dist. Medina No. 12CA0057-M, 2013-
Ohio-4407.
{¶4} While Hartman’s appeal from his second trial was pending, Hartman’s mother
filed a petition for post-conviction relief on his behalf. On February 20, 2014, the trial court
denied the petition on the basis that it was not properly before the court.
{¶5} Hartman filed a timely notice of appeal from the denial of the petition for post-
conviction relief. On appeal, Hartman raises six assignments of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DISMISSING ON PROCEDURAL AND
JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS MR. HARTMAN’S UNOPPOSED
FEBRUARY 11, 2013 PRO SE PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
(“TRIAL II PETITION”), BROUGHT UNDER R.C. 2953.21, AND THUS
VIOLATED THE PROTECTIONS ACCORDED BY ARTICLE I, SECTION 16
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF OHIO AND THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING HARTMAN’S TRIAL II
PETITION, WHEN PRESENTED WITH THE FACTS THAT MR. HARTMAN
HAD BEEN UNLAWFULLY IMPRISONED BY THE STATE OF OHIO AT
THE RICHLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, CONTRARY TO R.C. 2953.13 AND R.C 2905.01(B)(2),
FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS AFTER HIS CONVICTION HAD BEEN
REVERSED AND REMANDED, THUS DEPRIVING MR. HARTMAN OF
EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW PROVIDED BY ARTICLE I, SECTION 16
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF OHIO AND THE FIFTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING MR. HARTMAN’S TRIAL I
PETITION AND TRIAL II PETITION WHEN IT DID NOT CONSIDER THE
3
ISSUES SET OUT IN HIS INITIAL PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF (“TRIAL I PETITION”), TIMELY FILED ON JUNE 29, 2011, AND
TRIAL II PETITION, TIMELY FILED ON FEBRUARY 11, 2013, PROVIDED
BY R.C. 2953.21, IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF OHIO AND THE FIFTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING MR. HARTMAN’S INSTANT
TRIAL II PETITION WHEN IT DENIED HIM A TIMELY RULING ON HIS
JUNE 29, 2011 PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, TRIAL I
PETITION, CONTRARY TO OHIO CRIM.R. 1 AND 35(C), THUS DENYING
HIM THE PROTECTIONS ACCORDED BY ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF OHIO AND THE FIFTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY
PROCEEDING WITH A SECOND TRIAL, AFTER FAILING TO CONSIDER
AND TIMELY RULE ON MR. HARTMAN’S JUNE 29, 2011 PETITION FOR
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, TRIAL I PETITION, WHICH, ALONG WITH
HIS MOTION TO BAR SUCCESSIVE PROSECUTION OF DEFENDANT IN
VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT’S DOUBLE JEOPARDY
CLAUSE, PRESENTED INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THE
STATE FAILED TO PROVE AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT FO THE OFFENSE
OF AGGRAVATED BURGLARY AT TRIAL I, THUS ERRONEOUSLY
EXPOSING HIM TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY, PROSCRIBED BY SECTION 10,
ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS THE FIFTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT
DEPRIVED MR. HARTMAN OF NOTICE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD IN THE MATTER OF A LETTER, UNDISCLOSED BY THE TRIAL
II COURT, THAT CONTAINED FALSE AND FRAUDULENT
ALLEGATIONS, DIRECTED AT MR. HARTMAN’S TRIAL COUNSEL AND
INVESTIGATOR, COMPOSED AND SENT TO THE TRIAL II COURT BY
ADVERSE PARTIES IN UNRELATED CIVIL LITIGATION IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
INDIANA, CAUSING PREJUDICE AGAINST MR. HARTMAN, HIS TRIAL
COUNSEL, AND HIS INVESTIGATOR BY THE TRIAL II COURT, THUS
4
DEPRIVING MR. HARTMAN OF GUARANTEES ACCORDED BY
ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
OHIO AND THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
{¶6} In his six assignments of error, Hartman sets forth various arguments as to why
the trial court erred in denying his petition for post-conviction relief. As noted above, the trial
court denied Hartman’s petition on the basis that it was not properly before the Court due to the
fact that it was filed by his mother, a non-attorney. Hartman argues his petition was properly
before the trial court given that his mother had his power of attorney. We disagree.
{¶7} The Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized “that a non-lawyer with a power of
attorney may not appear in court on behalf of another, or otherwise practice law.” Disciplinary
Counsel v. Coleman, 88 Ohio St.3d 155, 158 (2000). The Supreme Court has promulgated rules
with respect to the practice of law in Ohio, and allowing a person holding a power of attorney to
essentially act as an attorney at law “would render meaningless the supervisory control of the
practice of law given to [the Supreme Court] by the Ohio Constitution.” Id. at 157. While the
law certainly recognizes that a person has an inherent right to proceed pro se, it also prohibits a
person who has not been admitted to the bar from attempting to represent another in court on the
basis of a power of attorney assigning pro se rights. Id. at 157-158; R.C. 4705.01 (“No person
shall be permitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law, or to commence, conduct, or
defend any action or proceeding in which the person is not concerned * * * unless the person has
been admitted to the bar by order of the supreme court in compliance with its prescribed and
published rules.”). Under the circumstances of this case, it was proper for the trial court to
refrain from entertaining the merits of the petition.
{¶8} Hartman’s assignments of error are overruled.
5
III.
{¶9} Hartman’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Medina
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, P. J.
WHITMORE, J.
CONCUR.
6
APPEARANCES:
MARILYN A. CRAMER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
DEAN HOLMAN, Prosecuting Attorney, and MATTHEW A. KERN, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for Appellee.