DocketNumber: C.A. No. 02CA008134.
Judges: WHITMORE, Judge.
Filed Date: 4/9/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made: {¶ 1} Petitioner-Appellant Gary Meek has appealed from an order of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas that denied his petition for disclosure of grand jury testimony. This Court affirms.
{¶ 3} Over one year after his convictions and sentence, Appellant moved this Court for leave to file a delayed appeal. We denied Appellant's motion. Appellant thereafter filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 4} On August 23, 2002, Appellant filed a petition in the trial court seeking the disclosure and in camera inspection of the complaining witnesses' testimony before the grand jury. Appellant stated that certain statements by complaining witnesses demonstrated that they provided more detailed dates of the alleged offenses than the state made available to him in the indictment or bill of particulars. The trial court denied Appellant's petition and Appellant has timely appealed, asserting two assignments of error.
"THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REQUIREMENTS OF [CRIM.R. 6(E)]."
"THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO INSPECT THE GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS WHEN THE FACE OF THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT A SECOND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION WILL BE COMMENCED IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY BY THE ALLEGED [VICTIMS] FOR OFFENSES ALLEGEDLY OCCURRING DURING THE SAME TIME FRAME AS THAT IN THE STATE OF OHIO."
{¶ 5} In both assignments of error, Appellant has argued that the trial court erred in denying his petition for disclosure of grand jury testimony. Appellant has contended that the testimony included more detailed dates of the alleged offenses than were provided in the indictment and bill of particulars, and he was unable to adequately prepare an alibi defense without the more specific dates. In support of his petition in the trial court, Appellant attached copies of written statements from complaining witnesses and reports of detectives who interviewed the witnesses. According to Appellant, these reports and statements indicate that the complaining witnesses testified before the grand jury that the alleged offenses occurred on specific dates, yet the state only provided Appellant with general ranges of time in the indictment and bill of particulars.
{¶ 6} We construe Appellant's petition, which was filed several years after his convictions and sentence and relies on evidence outside the record, as a petition for postconviction relief. Such petitions are governed by R.C.
"[A] court may not entertain a petition filed after the expiration of the period prescribed in [R.C.
2953.21 (A)] or a second petition or successive petitions for similar relief on behalf of a petitioner unless both of the following apply:
"(1) Either of the following applies:
"(a) The petitioner shows that the petitioner was unavoidably prevented from discovery of the facts upon which the petitioner must rely to present the claim for relief.
"(b) Subsequent to the period prescribed in [R.C.
2953.21 (A)(2)] or to the filing of an earlier petition, the United States Supreme Court recognized a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to persons in the petitioner's situation, and the petition asserts a claim based on that right."(2) The petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense of which the petitioner was convicted[.]"
{¶ 7} In the case sub judice, the criteria at R.C.
{¶ 8} As Appellant failed to satisfy the criteria set forth at R.C.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.