State v. Mayle ( 2019 )

[Cite as State v. Mayle, 2019-Ohio-2686.]
COURT OF APPEALS
GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. John W. Wise, P. J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs-
Case No. 18 CA 000031
SHAWN D. MAYLE
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 15 CR 0078
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 28, 2019
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellee
JOEL M. BLUE ELIZABETH N. GABA
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 123 East Broad Street
JASON R. FARLEY Columbus, Ohio 43205
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR
627 Wheeling Avenue
Cambridge, Ohio 43725
Guernsey County, Case No. 18 CA 000031 2
Wise, John, P. J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Shawn D. Mayle appeals the October 9, 2018,
decision of Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for judicial
release.
{¶2} Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶3} On April 25, 2016, Appellant Shawn D. Mayle entered into a negotiated plea
agreement with regard to two criminal cases: 15CR78 and 15CR104. Pursuant to the
plea agreement, the two cases were joined for sentencing.
{¶4} In 15 CR 78, Appellant pled guilty to and was convicted of one count of
Possession of Cocaine, an F-3, for which he was sentenced to 12 months mandatory
time, and one count of Weapons Under Disability, for which he was sentenced to 36
months non-mandatory time.
{¶5} In 15 CR 104, Appellant pled guilty to and was convicted of one count of
Possession of Marijuana, an F-5, and was sentenced to 9 months non-mandatory time.
All time was ordered to run consecutively.
{¶6} On April 30, 2018, Appellant filed a pro-se motion for judicial release on
both cases.
{¶7} On May 7, 2018, the state of Ohio opposed the motion.
{¶8} On May 10, 2018, the trial court held a non-oral administrative review of
Appellant’s motion.
{¶9} On May 16, 2018, the trial court denied the motion.
Guernsey County, Case No. 18 CA 000031 3
{¶10} On September 14, 2018, Appellant, through counsel, filed a second motion
for judicial release on both cases.
{¶11} On September 18, 2018, the state of Ohio opposed the motion.
{¶12} On September 27, 2018, the trial court held a non-oral administrative review
of Appellant’s motion.
{¶13} On October 9, 2018, the trial court denied the motion.
{¶14} Appellant now appeals, raising the following assignments of error on
appeal:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶15} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT
AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR
JUDICIAL RELEASE. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT AND
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE
COMPELLED. THE TRIAL COURT ACTED IN VIOLATION OF CONTRACT LAW AND
APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SECTIONS 1 AND16,
ARTICLE 1 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
{¶16} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT
AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR
JUDICIAL RELEASE. THE JUDGE HAD INTERJECTED HIMSELF INTO THE PLEA
BARGAIN PROCESS, AND APPELLANT AS A RESULT DETRIMENTALLY RELIED ON
THE COURT'S PROMISES.”
Guernsey County, Case No. 18 CA 000031 4
I., II.
{¶17} In his two assignments of error, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in
denying his motion for judicial release. We disagree.
{¶18} R.C. §2929.20(B) states that “[o]n the motion of an eligible offender or upon
its own motion, the sentencing court may reduce the eligible offender's aggregated
nonmandatory prison term or terms through a judicial release under this section.”
{¶19} It is well-established that the denial of a motion for judicial release is not a
final appealable order. See, e.g., State v. Bennett, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2005–
0009, 2006–Ohio–2812, ¶ 15, citing State v. Masko, 7th Dist. Trumbull No. 2004–T0070,
2004–Ohio–5297, ¶ 2. See, also, State v. Rowbotham, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 12 MA
152, 2013–Ohio–2286, ¶ 1. As the Tenth District Court of Appeals has aptly recognized,
on questions of judicial release, R.C. §2929.20 “confers substantial discretion to the trial
court, but makes no provision for appellate review.” State v. Lawson, 10th Dist. Franklin
No. 02AP–148, 2002–Ohio–3329, ¶ 23.
{¶20} However, courts have recognized an exception under circumstances where
an Appellant argues that the State breached the terms of the plea agreement during the
judicial release proceedings. Jimenez at ¶ 6, citing State ex rel. Rowe v. McCown, 108
Ohio St. 3d 183, 2006-Ohio-548, ¶ 5; see also State v. Unik, 9th Dist. Lorain No.
11CA009996, 2012-Ohio-307, ¶ 6.
{¶21} Appellant herein is arguing that both the State and the trial court breached
the contract entered into by the parties during sentencing.
{¶22} Regardless, we find that the doctrine of res judicata bars Appellant from
raising these arguments in the instant appeal as these identical arguments were already
Guernsey County, Case No. 18 CA 000031 5
raised before the trial court in Appellant’s first motion for judicial release, which Appellant
did not appeal. State v. Jennings, Richland App.No. 01CA62, 2001-Ohio-1742.
{¶23} Accordingly, we find Appellant’s First and Second Assignments of Error not
well-taken and hereby overrule same.
{¶24} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the Court
of Common Pleas, Guernsey County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, John, P. J.
Baldwin, J., and
Wise, Earle, J., concur.
JWW/d 0620