State v. Bennett , 2013 Ohio 4453 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Bennett, 
    2013-Ohio-4453
    .]
    COURT OF APPEALS
    STARK COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    JUDGES:
    STATE OF OHIO                                  :       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
    :       Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
    Plaintiff-Appellee   :       Hon. John W. Wise, J.
    :
    -vs-                                           :
    :       Case No. 2013CA00097
    JOHN C. BENNETT, JR.                           :
    :
    Defendant-Appellant       :       OPINION
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                           Criminal appeal from the Stark County
    Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
    2009CR0490A
    JUDGMENT:                                          Affirmed
    DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                            October 7, 2013
    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff-Appellee                             For Defendant-Appellant
    JOHN D. FERRERO                                    JOHN C. BENNETT, JR., PRO SE
    PROSECUTING ATTORNEY                               INMATE NO. 570-509
    BY: RENEE M. WATSON                                MCI
    110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 510                  Box 57
    Canton, OH 44702-1413                              Marion, OH 43301
    [Cite as State v. Bennett, 
    2013-Ohio-4453
    .]
    Gwin, P.J.
    {¶1}     Defendant-appellant John C. Bennett, Jr. appeals the April 17, 2013
    judgment entry denying his motion to return personal property in the Stark County Court
    of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
    Facts & Procedural History
    {¶2}     In April of 2009, appellant was indicted on charges of aggravated robbery,
    kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and felonious assault. The victim of the crimes was
    Leonard Cooper (“Cooper”), who hired appellant to do odd jobs. On March 20, 2009,
    appellant and an accomplice trespassed into Cooper’s home, attacked him, and forced
    him to write a check in appellant’s name. Prior to leaving Cooper’s home, appellant
    took Cooper’s wallet, credit cards, and cash. On June 8, 2009, appellant entered a plea
    of guilty to the charges.
    {¶3}     The trial court sentenced appellant to seven years on each count, with
    each seven year commitment for counts two, three, and four to be served concurrent
    with the seven year commitment on count one. On December 23, 2009, this Court
    denied appellant’s motion to file a delayed appeal. In May of 2010, the Ohio Supreme
    Court denied appellant’s motion for delayed appeal.
    {¶4}     Appellant moved the trial court to withdraw his guilty plea on April 5, 2010.
    The trial court held a hearing on appellant’s motion and also simultaneously conducted
    a resentencing hearing because the trial court’s original sentencing entry failed to
    properly inform appellant of the length of his post-release control. On June 28, 2010,
    the trial court denied appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea and resentenced him to
    correctly notify appellant of the proper length of his post-release control. Appellant
    Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00097                                                        3
    appealed the trial court’s decision and this Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in
    May of 2011 in State v. Bennett, 5th Dist. No. 2010CA00200, 
    2011-Ohio-2236
    . The
    Ohio Supreme Court declined appellant’s motion for jurisdiction. In August of 2012,
    appellant filed a motion to correct his sentence and the trial court denied the motion.
    {¶5}   On April 15, 2013, appellant filed a motion to return personal property.
    Appellant asserts when he was arrested he had the following items: smokeless pipe,
    miscellaneous keys, a wallet, $536.00 in cash, a cell phone, credit cards belonging to
    the alleged victim, personal identification belonging to the alleged victim, and a
    discarded check. The trial court denied appellant’s motion to return property on April
    17, 2013. Appellant appeals the April 17, 2013 judgment entry of the trial court and
    assigns the following error:
    {¶6}   “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT RETURNING PERSONAL
    PROPERTY.”
    {¶7}   Appellant argues the cash and wallet in his possession were never
    identified as belonging to the alleged victim and seeks the return of the keys, wallet,
    phone, smokeless pipe, and $536.00 in cash because the property seized from him was
    his.
    {¶8}   Appellant’s argument fails for two reasons. First, appellant’s motion to
    return property is barred under the doctrine of res judicata.       “[A] final judgment of
    conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising
    and litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or
    any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the
    defendant * * * on an appeal from that judgment.” State v. Perry, 
    10 Ohio St.2d 175
     at
    Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00097                                                        4
    syllabus, 
    226 N.E.2d 104
     (1967). Appellant pled guilty in June of 2009 and failed to file
    an appeal until December of 2009 when a motion for delayed appeal was denied. Since
    appellant could have raised the argument regarding the return of his property in his
    direct appeal, he is precluded from raising it herein. See Cline v. Urbana Police Div.,
    2nd Dist. No. 09-CA-45, 
    2010-Ohio-5384
    . Further, the trial court held a hearing on
    appellant’s motion to withdraw plea and to resentence him to the correct post-release
    control. Appellant failed to bring the issue regarding the personal property to the trial
    court’s attention during these proceedings and he again failed to raise the issue
    regarding the return of the property in his subsequent appeal of the trial court’s decision.
    Thus, he is now precluded from asserting these additional issues which should have
    been raised in prior proceedings, particularly when the subject of this appeal does not
    involve any new evidence. See State v. Poicus, 11th Dist. No. 95-L-179, 
    1996 WL 761213
     (December 13, 1996).
    {¶9}   Appellant’s argument must also fail as a result of his guilty plea. Pursuant
    to R.C. 2981.03(A)(4):
    A person aggrieved by an alleged unlawful seizure of property may
    seek relief from the seizure by filing a motion in the appropriate court that
    shows the person’s interest in the property, states why the seizure was
    unlawful, and requests the property’s return. * * * If the motion is filed by a
    defendant after an indictment, information, or a complaint seeking
    forfeiture of the property has been filed, the court shall treat the motion as
    a motion to suppress evidence.
    Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00097                                                       5
    {¶10} Pursuant to this statute, a motion to return property is categorized as a
    motion to suppress. A defendant who enters a plea of guilty waives the right to appeal
    all non-jurisdictional issues arising at prior stages of the proceedings * * *. Ross v.
    Auglaize Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 
    30 Ohio St.2d 323
    , 
    285 N.E.2d 25
     (1972). Thus,
    by entering a guilty plea, a defendant waives the right to raise on appeal the proprietary
    of a trial court’s suppression ruling. State v. Elliott, 
    86 Ohio App.3d 792
    , 
    621 N.E.2d 1272
     (12th Dist. 1993); State v. Harvey, 5th Dist. No. 20074-CA-00335, 2008-Ohio-
    3654. Here, appellant pled guilty in June of 2009 to all of the charges contained in the
    indictment. By entering his guilty plea in this case, appellant waived his right assert any
    challenge based upon an alleged violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment.
    {¶11} Based upon the foregoing, appellant’s assignment of error is overruled
    and the April 17, 2013 judgment entry of the Stark County Common Pleas Court is
    affirmed.
    By Gwin, P.J., and
    Wise, J., concur;
    Hoffman, J., concurs
    separately
    _________________________________
    HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
    _________________________________
    HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
    _________________________________
    HON. JOHN W. WISE
    WSG:clw 0924
    Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00097                                                        6
    Hoffman, J. concurring
    {¶12} I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court's denial of
    Appellant's motion to return property.     However, I do so solely on the basis I find
    Appellant's remedy lies in the filing of a civil action for replevin or, in the alternative,
    conversion against the person or entity in possession of the property.
    ________________________________
    HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
    [Cite as State v. Bennett, 
    2013-Ohio-4453
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    STATE OF OHIO                                     :
    :
    Plaintiff-Appellee   :
    :
    :
    -vs-                                              :       JUDGMENT ENTRY
    :
    JOHN C. BENNETT, JR.                              :
    :
    :
    Defendant-Appellant       :       CASE NO. 2013CA00097
    For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the April 17,
    2013 judgment entry of the Stark County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. Costs to
    appellant.
    _________________________________
    HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
    _________________________________
    HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
    _________________________________
    HON. JOHN W. WISE
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2013CA00097

Citation Numbers: 2013 Ohio 4453

Judges: Gwin

Filed Date: 10/7/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016