State v. Dickerson ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Dickerson, 2022-Ohio-3012.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-
Case No. 2022 CA 0027
TRAEVON DICKERSON
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Richland County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2021-CR-0842
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 29, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
GARY BISHOP TRAEVON DICKERSON
Prosecuting Attorney 661 Courtwright Blvd.
Richland County, Ohio Mansfield, Ohio 44907
JODIE SCHUMACHER
First Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
38 South Park Street – Second Floor
Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Traevon Dickerson appeals the judgment entered by
the Richland County Common Pleas Court overruling his motion for re-examination of his
case. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
{¶2} On November 5, 2021, Appellant was indicted by the Richland County
Grand Jury with two counts of domestic violence. His mother was named as the victim in
one count, and his sister was named as the victim in the second count. The police report
from the date in question indicated Appellant was taken to the hospital prior to being taken
to jail.
{¶3} Appellant entered a plea of guilty to count two, in which his sister was the
victim, on December 29, 2021. Count one was dismissed by the State. Appellant was
sentenced to thirty months of community control.
{¶4} Appellant filed a motion on March 28, 2022, asking the trial court to re-
examine and/or retry his case. He attached a hospital report from the night of the incident
to his motion, which demonstrated Appellant received injuries to his back on the night of
the incident giving rise to the indictment.
{¶5} The trial court overruled the motion. It is from the April 6, 2022 judgment of
the trial court Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:
1 A rendition of the facts is unnecessary to our resolution of the issues raised on appeal.
I. THE MANSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT ABUSED THEIR
AUTHORITY BY: (1) DISREGARDING APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR
THEM TO REVIEW THE VIDEO EVIDENCE HE RECORDED ON
OCTOBER 2ND, 2021. (2) ARRESTING THE APPELLANT WITHOUT
HAVING ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT HE VIOLATED O.R.C.
2919.25(B). (3) MAKING NO ATTEMPTS TO ADVISE THE PARTIES
RETURN TO THEIR RESPECTIVE HOMES, DETAILING THAT A
MEETING WITH THE LAW DIRECTOR COULD BE REQUESTED IF
EITHER PARTY WISHES TO FILE CHARGES.
{¶6} At the outset we note Appellant’s three-part assignment of error is directed
toward the conduct of police in investigating the case, and does not claim error in the trial
court’s entry overruling his motion to re-examine the evidence, which is the entry
Appellant is appealing.
{¶7} The trial court stated as follows in its judgment overruling Appellant’s
motion:
The Defendant has not established what significance the medical
records have in this case. First, as stated above, the police report indicates
that the Defendant was injured during the altercation and was taken to the
hospital; therefore, this is not new information. Second, the fact that the
Defendant was injured in no way affects whether or not he committed a
crime. Individuals are often injured during the commission of a crime and
domestic violence/assaultive situations occasionally involve mutual combat
and injuries to both parties. The fact that he also sustained injuries does
not prove that the Defendant did not assault his sister. Further, the
Defendant has presented no evidence as to who injured him and how.
Finally, the Defendant entered a plea of guilty. The Defendant’s change of
plea waives any right he has to raise any claims, issue[s], or defenses that
occurred prior to his change of plea.
{¶8} Judgment, April 6, 2022.
{¶9} We find the trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion for the
reasons stated in its judgment entry as cited above. Although Appellant claims in his
reply brief his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, Appellant did
not timely appeal his conviction, and did not file a motion to withdraw the plea in the trial
court. Further, Appellant has not provided this Court with the transcript of the plea
hearing, and this Court therefore must presume regularity in the plea proceeding. Knapp
v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384, 385 (1980).
{¶10} Appellant’s motion to re-examine the case is in its essence a delayed
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. However, a guilty
plea waives the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction.
See, e.g. State v. Jones, 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-14-042, 2015-Ohio-4209, ¶ 10. A guilty
plea acts as a conviction, requiring no findings of fact or verdict to support it. Id. at ¶9.
Therefore, there was no “evidence” for the trial court to re-examine in the instant case, as
Appellant’s guilty plea obviated the requirement of evidentiary support for the trial court’s
finding of guilt.
{¶11} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Richland County
Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Wise, John, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur