State v. Neal , 2017 Ohio 47 ( 2017 )

[Cite as State v. Neal, 2017-Ohio-47.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals Nos. L-16-1105
L-16-1106
Appellee L-16-1107
v. Trial Court Nos. CR0200702127
CR0200901731
Rochelle Neal CR0200902368
Appellant DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Decided: January 6, 2017
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Claudia A. Ford, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Rochelle Neal, pro se.
*****
SINGER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Rochelle Neal, filed a consolidated and accelerated appeal from
the April 26, 2016 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas denying his
motion for discovery pursuant to Crim.R. 16. Because we find the trial court did not err
in denying the motion, we affirm.
{¶ 2} In 2007, appellant was convicted of attempted felonious assault and
sentenced. He did not appeal from his conviction and sentence. After the victim of the
attempted felonious assault died, appellant was charged with murder. Appellant entered a
guilty plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27
L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), to a charge of involuntary manslaughter charged in a bill of
information, and he was convicted and sentenced. The state entered a nolle prosequi and
the murder charges were dismissed. No direct appeal was ever filed from either final
judgment.
{¶ 3} In the current case, appellant filed, pursuant to Crim.R. 16, a request for
discovery of evidence the state had regarding his prior convictions and plea agreements
in the case referenced above. The trial court denied the motion on April 26, 2016,
finding a Crim.R. 16 discovery is applicable only to pending criminal proceedings prior
to trial. Because appellant has already been convicted and sentenced, the trial court
found the issues raised were barred under the doctrine of res judicata. Appellant appeals
from the trial court’s judgment and asserts the following assignments of error:
ERROR I: DEFENDANT, ROCHELLE NEIL [SIC] WAS
DENIED THE RECORD TO USE IN THIS APPEAL PROCESS, WHICH
IS A VIOLATION OF GRIFFIN VS. ILLINOIS, AND DRAPER VS.
WASHINGTON, AND APP.R. 9.
ERROR II: DEFENDANT, ROCHELLE NEILS [SIC] SIXTH
AMENDMENT RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY LUCAS COUNTY
2.
COURTS TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COURT APPOINTED
[SIC] COUNSEL.
ERROR III: THE STATE OF OHIO VIOLATED DEFENDANT,
ROCHELLE NEILS [SIC] “BRADY RIGHTS” BY WITHHOLDING
VITAL EVIDENCE ‘FOUR’ [SIC] HIS DEFENSE.
{¶ 4} Appellant argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred by
denying his access to the record to use in this appeal process. Crim.R. 16 governs the
discovery of evidence in pending criminal action. There is no pending criminal action in
this case. Furthermore, Crim.R. 16 does not provide for a process for discovery of
evidence relating to a postconviction relief petition or appellate review of a prior
conviction. Therefore, we find the trial court did not err as a matter of law in denying
appellant the relief sought. Appellant’s first assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 5} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that his trial counsel in
his prior criminal action rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. This assignment of
error is unrelated to the judgment which is the subject of this appeal. Therefore, we find
appellant’s second assignment of error not well-taken.
{¶ 6} In this third assignment of error, appellant argues the state withheld
exculpatory evidence from appellant regarding his defense in the prior criminal
proceedings. Again, this assignment of error is unrelated to the judgment which is the
subject of this appeal. Therefore, appellant’s third assignment of error is not well-taken.
3.
{¶ 7} Having found the trial court did not commit error prejudicial to appellant
and that substantial justice has been done, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant
to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J.
_______________________________
Thomas J. Osowik, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
4.