DocketNumber: No. 88189.
Citation Numbers: 2007 Ohio 1305
Judges: COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.
Filed Date: 3/22/2007
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} Davis' appeal involves three different cases. He was indicted in Case No. CR-444016 in September 2003 and was charged with possession of drugs and criminal trespass. In January 2004, Davis was indicted in Case Nos. CR-448450 and CR-447997. He was charged with breaking and entering, theft, possession of criminal tools, and possession of drugs in Case No. CR-448450, and possession of drugs in Case No. CR-447997. Davis pled guilty to all counts and was sentenced in March 2004 to a total of three years in prison.
{¶ 3} Davis moved for judicial release under R.C.
{¶ 4} Davis did not appeal his convictions or sentences or the finding of his violation of community control sanctions. Rather, he filed a petition for postconviction relief in Case Nos. CR-444016, CR-448450, and CR-447997 pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 5} Davis appeals, raising five assignments of error. In his first assignment of error, he argues that he was denied his
{¶ 6} However, Davis' notice of appeal designates two trial court orders entered on April 18, 2006, which involve the findings of fact for his petition for postconviction relief. Accordingly, Davis is attempting to utilize the instant appeal to improperly seek review of alleged errors that he failed to timely appeal, rather than seeking a review of errors in the trial court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief. As we stated in State v. Church (Nov. 2, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 68590: *Page 3
"This type of `bootstrapping' to wit, the utilization of a subsequent order to indirectly and untimely appeal a prior order (which was never directly appealed) is procedurally anomalous and inconsistent with the appellate rules which contemplate a direct relationship between the order from which the appeal is taken and the error assigned as a result of that order. See, Appellate Rules 3(D), 4(A), 5 and 16(A)(3)." See also, State v. Muldrew, Cuyahoga App. No. 85661,
2005-Ohio-5000 .
{¶ 7} In the instant case, Davis appeals the trial court's dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief. R.C.
{¶ 8} Moreover, any errors involving Davis' constitutional rights and the validity of his guilty plea should have been raised on direct appeal and within thirty days of March 23, 2004. See App.R. 4(A) and 5; see also Parks v. Baltimore Ohio R.R. (1991),
{¶ 9} Even if we review the denial of Davis' petition for postconviction relief, R.C.
{¶ 10} Davis did not allege in his petition any of the exceptions set forth in R.C.
{¶ 11} It is apparent that Davis was not "unavoidably prevented" from discovering the facts alleged in his petition. He was aware of the facts pertaining to defense counsel's alleged incompetence, and he was aware of any alleged defects in his guilty plea. Therefore, he could have asserted these facts in a timely petition. Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed Davis' petition for postconviction relief.
{¶ 12} Therefore, the five assignments of error are overruled. *Page 5
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant the costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J. and KENNETH A. ROCCO, J. CONCUR