IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,Case No. lo 3 4

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

Defendant-Appellant.

On Appeal from the viCounty Court of Appeals

Appellate District

C.A. Case No. G° 12- 0

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTIONOF APPELLANT < S -

w qvs\:g^^^^ J^ ( :^) - ^ 45NAtvffi AND NUMBER

INSTITUfION

ADDRESS

o1e y^5(s99C1TY, STATE & ZIP

PIIONE

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, PRO SE

^^s2^ln 1-a (0ok2^J,9^PROSECUTOR NAME

ADDRESS

4J Z,o2-CITY,S'I'ATE &ZIP

PIIONE

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, STATE OF OHIO

ELDJAN 2 2 2013

CLER K OF COURTSUPREME CUURT O F OH I O

Ir^^N 222013

CLERK OF COURTSLIREME COURT OF ®Hd0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Patze No.

EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREATGENERAL INTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIALCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION ....................................................................................................^^

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ..................................................................................,.5, 6

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION OF LAW ...........................................................723

PROPOSITION OF LAW : .. ........................................................................................................... . 9,10

CONCLUSION ..........:.......................................................................................................................t I

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..........................................................................................................t2

APPENDIX

Judgment Entry and Opinion, Court of Appeals, A County,( DATE ) ..................................................................................................................... A-1

Gcscnr} C> V G® wnwvc^ a-\ Sa1-Z^ C^' 6^

^ i (^ Cn a 3 () }=1^ C,^,0^ !°

C,oL^, C3+"o;cji®v1' e'av\P-wU3 CIJ--c., ^0,

rA Q-\^A v-\ L, j G+^^^ c,,

^

Ci P

i

EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERALINTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTION QUESTION.

e^v*^Q11^.v, +V\-Q-

61C90'1

tt91 chc^^^Ir`^+^7

^cx v

^ ohsi;^ce ►.►^ oV'^. ok

proGe.^^

ay\e) O,n 6p Q eS

^^°o^+ •' ^ ^ a ^ e `^® c^^ ^^ s^^ v +^y P^0 6^ vso^ Prd(^e,v-

k

Yc^1^2^5 ^pcj-,v\iC or

2,S'^C OX^ SC> el^oG^^

^t,t , v,e ^'L

o(2-)9t^ A ViI^^^Q^

^ ons^̂u^ 1^ ^

a-'pec,i.^kC -,,,Se 1'cf r-o- uL'\ Uv-+q

^ au\ ^ c, ^ . ^^^^^^ sko^A^^A

cw\ c- c3,5 e-'^ ow® ct, ck

(1 )

^^^t..CA^`^1093^ C2-^ <.r.J^^ -^--0^^^ ^c^.^... 1+^^4of°^-@^^ Ct^ ^u,,4^^^C...

e r, c©v%50e,rc►,$4ov^

$^.e,v.^^ \^^p^,;,^^ C, ^ChV2.^^^^ SC^ ^'1-^a4^ ^r^^ plr^vtot.^^\^' ^^^,a.^'•^^

cts

9s^c^5^'^^ k^.c,c3re^^^ ^ i ^•, C>V:s o^

^W; ^A^, ^ ^rn^s i vs hn ^^c^^ i ^ ^^^inc^oa^^ eh$ ►`$^2 b^'

C+ F' '5Y

Ca

1 s

P,5nA'AAQ& +o 0Y' ck

p 0e1n$ ( 2-)

^ c^w.p^i^,v>^ c^- G ®^^Se ^ c^•^ >^,^u^,s^ ^o ^ ^P^,a^1

Cl,k pUar\1 ^'sOnV 4ovL v%^

c^ ^° r^,^.w^^ k ^ ^ ^-^.^-. ^^^3 ^^^-^' ► . .C ©^^^^^ ^^YL-\ CkYQ0OpshT

^2^

c)ASC)i

4^y De ^(ZY6ay-\^ i v'\ 09e.,Y-\ Co\-Jrk cN^

ca►-+^ }^ w^ Q ^^sz Gav,v- + ^ ^ ^^ ^\^ i ►^^

^^'--

=e

(-kbaa^l O^^ cw\ e.VA'^k\^^V^Azv,^S`^.1- ^^^ ^ ^t,^ ^ ^^S^- ^ ^1 C..,^ ^® Y° ^ ^^S2Q` g ',1'^ ;^ ^ ►®

-^9•^^`^' !^ ^^ \^,^vv^ i 1^^ ^\ q.a^ ^ ^`^ t ^, ^

-^ ^0 ^ ^ ^ `^ ! t^^va ^^' C^1 ^ O^k'a v^ ve CY Clo Mb ^ i ®1/^ l' O ^S ►^^ ►f^\N^

c^ a^ 5^v a Sc^l t^ ^^ b V^,. -{ 4^ G^ rn w^o ^,^ Q1 e.e^ C-C)N-ArAr ca v,,

A p eo+\- G .i ^,n45 amye- t^ ► rec.., ^ f^ ^ Fe-c)o \

+,3,JJ1 Ves'ceQ1 -\+,^ ccY4 o^

U,,, j a,.\ (3 -kAoV\ lae^,^C <^m^q Ac,^ -^b A"k-A ^V-,z

P^,-,^PeO\ , 6,A c zt,.v-k5 4;^^ ^,W, ®,a^^ ^^k'ZV'c^,r^i^e,a VC ^^,\t+1 ^Y cn^ CAS^®^^uw2'Vl ^' C^ ^

C. 4YO t> 1AL^ (Dk

(4Y-\ Cl^ Vl\

Ow\ %)A1-0- 6^ ,Sk°S

^e,^^:,-^^ 'i ^^ ►^,^-wti ^ ^ -r^a

^1 (3)

I-Ap be,1-UV\6

r^9r^^ ^^Pe^^ c5^ 26

(^v^' c,^.^^ ^ ^^^\^^ (L^,o• ^,N (Zk' ti v ^L ^ 47Y^.P- v'v c^1-\

wc^,14^^ ck\\

1^^a 9(`^ {^ p^ c^•^ ^^ Ce ^^^^ ^ e, V c^^ ^-^ ^!^ ^^

cA^

w^^hc^+^ w i^1nGV• ^C C. ^ a^• ^' S^ ^<^^ ^L ^^,1r^

1E:, Ch C>ZY >VVNC-

^ 1iQ9^ i vb C^c1'^`^oc^QY Ov^c^b^' k)j

Ac

OIVJ <-ACIO

, ',a

C^-3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS

O ►^ ^ e p ^ 14, Z Q o -7 --:L c-,,s a. ^, ^ ^ c1 yc ^ e^ c^ ►^ ^ ► ^9 ^

c,c)^,^ 10/) 110 7 Pke,c& c>^ +y ^y1re^Sc^^ c)^ Ck^^^^ vvj oYo- C)e.r

On i1 ` 2.Q3z> 0, G-v,iv`(- pl-o-(:7A

aaA S L,^)^ ^.(T.<j, S2-)

-^^^^ p0'Qcx ^V,ICI1LAA(2jj- Z-S, ye-CAv-5

^ t^^^ ^^ on ^^ en C^ 4hs2-

1V\ OWic^-)vlreA

.1

v1

2-

®VN

^ ^►zo^1vy ^

^^.'c 11, ^o ® `b

ac1 \, vv-\% vn

^-^ ^^. ^^^

0-^l ®v^ ky c,r-^ ^a 0 +ksz ca^k^AR- 4,kp Cc^C^Y' ^-

App.eo\5 Yce, s"%enw-I +vw I

-^^iz, ®c?^aS^C^^s^, r,J+va ^,J^^°j c^^^►e,c^ Ov^

CA- (-̂'YYQ Y

^,^ ^ ^ ^-^c ^- ^ p^, l ^c^;S ^,©^^ ► ^ ^¢,^ q^, -^D^

^^i ^^ ^ fi ^^. p\^ 4 ^ r^c^^ ^^,

^iQ^y ^®Y!^ 5^^'^3^SL^ ^^^+ 3e-8 My ln/0o+1©1n G.1/1

cA

kza^ i Yn ©^n / /12-1j12,,

^-' -.sL ^{- G aS ao,sNLL9v^ ^7 `^ C7 ^ ^. Y A> O V^j ^ 1 C/a g 1°LS2 V.SLY J y^C ^'

^3^^j ®a k''^c,^r ^ ^^-L^ cS4^\^ ^^^ ^ CaV^, cJl^^j\GJb, ^^^Q.,a^

G (" eV' 0' -o !(°

©l,IJ ^^'J25^+T ^LOVx^^Y Osny^b.ivep^g 44a9-^

c^ V-8 y-

r-. t^yskln^c^^ ©^ ^-^^¢ p^eal S

^^C ff a

\ -o

PROPOSITION OF LAW

ARGvweev^^ IV% 51A'P^QV' + c^'^ P ro(>os9V-\

(D^

viv,A^ vN ck^\

kVe ovV-cA9cp^n ^-^c/s py-aV-^^V3a-^,2 ^,A

w-ce p-^'ken <^ cA P1D-Cn

^d^u^n^^ l,J`i ^ C^^QCaY' l^l ►r+G^2s^'S'k'c7s^^S^ CS^ ^'^

C^^-^^j^, Y+a,

2_8 JI ^Zc^^^^

^6 V1,5 ^o-r^o o-, YN,-,z:^,

A- v,-4 0ZnAoQ +0 ^^ ^^ n0^ S^ onG,G 9r C^

U \li 1G^i^JV^ C^^ ^! ^ ^^ cw` ^o^ ^'^^^^9n C^^^ns ► ^ ^^^ ^a^

^- ^^ ^CllJt.nY^ 5^J ^ Cl S t 1V1 ^J^L i Vec^ ^ C^s2 Vi c e^ 4

Vo

C3^r Q5yG.v-\o1oc^^GCY+I^YQSGjCJaY`^

c^^ v.^o, Q^ "! ^ i S t ^.c^^ce c^ ►̂ t a dv"o^ 5t.-c, t---l CA

l^`'J4^Q^2^^^.Q

f- ^Wto^k2 ofkt:)VA GA, ^-Y^2q- vJ° ►^^^ S^ ^- C^Ow V^ ^ V0 ^Q

J> ^, ^ C \ . t `4 L-a Z4a ZA. 7 7 o, 11 6 J u, /-`exJa S

1941, w^cav^ ovsz^ r^ ^q,^ej,\Ac^„-\^

Mv'^e Sc^ Wc^S

CA

wr$YC_l6LY lL ^e^^3

^. l910® ^.c^a `^3

^^, ya^ us 9^g Z^ e^,d zd 24Z, 91 s< 19+OOK ve oALP-S

679d

ik^ poss;'^te, ^^^^^ +ko-

p5Yc 1r, i o,A-V'jCG Go"Aki A/10,,v2 l ed WIw,

FAc---VOAVV 6,e i &1x O^ Vti o«-`^ ClM A "cx

I ^n V(t.Aa co.,>e. Ara cAs Y\ Duafl.uo'A(X^^

4ycJu%1^'

i S 5^^1^ iV1 Sc,eSSioJrl 6Q413Y`2 ka C,^.nirT C^' l,,\ 040- Cn

j^2G ►^`^©V-) P^r cn tMc1CQ;S Ut C,V2C^i^'J^`2

d®'v.^1•^G T i^ t3` ^^

V\ V,\ C^e:e c, m ► v\'s

ve s} W ,AV4krc.J^^^70 ^ ^'Y`Q' e ^-^^•^'1G.^ ^nGJ

C5V,\ re.c(3 v-A sv\ Qkrv-, 2e^oJli^^O-^

q^.,o^^wvc) •,1tnv\Gc_e,V4 chved dVN\\( 1r-'Z,^^©VI -1 t--\ -6

P\Zr,k ! S

,40 -P^(^(^^'^

4AA

c.J IAtAY-rnvJ O1-,^ A--Vt.Q_

^VI^Ct.^C ^t^/2 ^e`^SI`y^CnVSC^ © Y C.©c7h^Q ^QGId

Sev S1-^^^ ^ ve^^r. q 00 '^^,

2_0 'DA-rkA-o-, C C.. ^,./4\(ClIV ` '3O)G C-C'l-4-3+y

lq S9 flPQ63c^ > >^ 7 g) 0\^c

^V,p_ G OppC21r^iJ^s3OA CR^ GY1\l +9 WE^^ Wa ^^ ^CGd^ V1G^-

^ VIni,o-e<3..a r vA CA VeQ

2Alc ^ v 8

►^^^os^^;c^v^ o V ^cnw

at^n (aroc ecc^^,4'^g.'^ !^^ c,GvzSie^ZY CA U'IO)cn+idvi

O-v, r-av.^>C) ha^

Dc, pYoGQ-5,, U ^ ^ aev.J o

(9 )

^^^ IJv^r^ S^jQ Cop- ^^e^Q I cn ^ 9^v e v- b;oplc^v^

c^^cwNO' - cA ^^yc ^ wa^v iC.

cp^t^ c_cAll.eJ

^f P^^'VC3C^^ {^/l2h'1^Gt^ F^nGd^^^^^ ^^GIY'k^J10^ ^'LE^

f IrT^^ ^^ ►^^^^ ^C t^c^^r.7 i v^^il/ c^^ ^ c^ ^^ w^sCc^3^ Q^^ Cn

pYa fX3S a-A'v o" 3^ e rnuJ

( -:D?)^

V-'' o in V--\ otle.vi^ ©

^ ^V-\ dc n cre:

Sc^^'e^e^C^^ C^Ve cn ^ca^1)°'j- p\ZCAn

e 5 cAC1^-- +0 v^ ,a^V d V>

c o m

®^ ,re co rc^

( °)

CONCLUSION

Fnv- -VVV, o^ s-k,k^A v-eo.,bov-i5-Aer,^p-^ 31-kv-i5Sk.c`Vi5a*%

SIGNATUR6

NAMEANDNUMBER ll^

INSTITUTION

ADDRESS

^^^^^,^(/^'3t/^, C7^CITY, STATE & ZIP

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, PRO SE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction was

forwarded by regular U.S. Mail to "^a'SpQk ^a bf;^-Q_Y-5 , Prosecuting Attorney,

p,, c,,,a l+ot-, County, C,iy\ ^ Ohio

.`, this ! C"J" day of -5 aq,ca^^ , 20,^S

8^J

WR S ^Ck^^^-'°SIGNAT[7RE

^eA1 "" Y ^] ^- ^ ^^^NAMEANDNUMBER

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, PRO SE

5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

^Q 5

Defendant-Appellant.

Case No.

On Appeal from theCounty Court of Appeals

tS +' Appellate District

C.A. Case No. C.. °i 20 4 ^-

APPENDIX TO

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTIONOF APPELLANT t y-e.._sQc 1^ ^:.^J,J^

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

APPEAL NO. C-12o142TRIAL NO. B-o7o7647

v. rveu.r aaL ENTERED^:.

uc ^v

p ^I ^ DEC 1 220 12Defendant-Appellant. ia

We consider this appeal on the accelerated calendar, and this judgment entry

is not an opinion of the court. See S.Ct.R.Rep.Op. 2; App.R. 11.i(E); ist Dist. Loc.R.

11.1.1.

Defendant-appellant Wesley D. Gill appeals from the Hamilton County

Common Pleas Court's judgment overruling his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.

We affirm the court's judgment as modified.

•i. n LL_ er-y,Giii was convicted in 2oo8 upon his gunty pleas to aggravatea' rvvu_

involuntary manslaughter, and having a weapon under a disability. He unsuccessfully

challenged his convictions in an appeal to this court, see State v. Gill, 1st Dist. No. C-

o80249 (Dec. io, 20o8), and three years later, in a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw

his guilty pleas.

In his appeal from the overruling of his Crim.R. 32.1 motion, Gill presents

four assignments of error. The assignments of error essentially restate the claims

advanced in his motion and may thus fairly be read to challenge the overruling of the

motion. We address the assignments of error together and overrule them.

t _.

♦

OHIo FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

The common pleas court had no jurisdiction to vacate Gill's guilty pleas after

we had, in his direct appeal, affirmed the convictions based upon those pleas. See

State ex ret. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, 55 Ohio St.2d 94, 97-98, 378 N.E.2d 162

(1978). Accord State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2olo-Ohio-3831, 935 N.E.2d

9, ¶61-62; State v. Akemon, ist Dist. No. C-o8o443, 2009-Ohio-3728. Thus, Gill's

Crim.R. 32.1 motion was subject to dismissal. Accordingly, upon the authority of

App.R. 12(A)(1)(a), we modify the judgment appealed from to reflect a dismissal of

the motion. And we affirm the judgment as modified.

A certified copy of this judgment entry is the mandate, which shall be sent to

the trial court under App.R. 27. Costs shall be taxed under App.R. 24.

SUNTlERMANrr, P.J., CUATNTIVGHAM and FISCHER, JJ.

To the clerk:

Enter upon the journ o e ourt on December 12, 2012

per order of the courtPresiding Judge

ENTERED

L :LEO12

2

OHIo FIRST DISTRICT COIIRT OF APPEALS

element of mens rea for four of the five counts on which he was indicted denied him bis

rights to due process and to a proper grand-jury indictmen#. This assignment of error is

not well taken.

In State v. Colon (Colon 1),2 the Ohio Supreme Court permitted the defendant to

raise the issue of a defective indictment for the first time on appeal. It held that the

absence of a mens rea in the indictment, together with significant errors throughout the

trial, constituted structural error that warranted reversal of the defendant's conviction.3

Subsequently, the court clarified its holding in Colon I on a motion for

reconsideration. In State v. Colon (Colon II),4 it stated that a structural-error analysis is

appropriate only in rare cases in which multiple errors at trial follow the defective

indiciment. Generally, where the indictment is defective because it did not include an

essential element and the defendant fails to object, courts should apply a plain-error

analysis.5

This court has discussed the problem of applying the analysis in Colon I and Colon

II to the offense of felony murder. "[F]elony murder is one of the few crimes in Ohio that

has no mens rea element directly attached to it. The mens rea element is found in the

predicate offense and does not arise from the catchall culpable mental. state of recldessly

found in R.C. 29o1.21(13).""

In the present case, though, the predicate offense was.oggravated robber..y under

R.C. 2911.o1(A)(i), which also does not specify a culpable mental state. Gill was. also

indicted for a separate ccnm of aggravated robbery and one count of ladnapping; neither

of which specified a mens rea. Therefore, the state was required to prove that the

2118 Ohio St.3d 26, 2oo8-Ohio-1624, 885 N.E.2d 917.3 State v. Sandoval, 9th Dist. No. o7CAo09276, 2oo8-Ohio-44o2.4 ii9 Ohio St.3d 204, 2008-Ohio-3749, 893 N.E.2d 169.5 State v. Dubose, i-t Dist. No. C-o7o397. 20o8-Ohio-4983; State v. Salaam, ist Dist. Nos. C-o7o385 and C-o7o413, 2008-Ohio-4982; Sandoval, supra.6 Dubose, supra; Salaam, supra.

2

OHIO FIRBT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

defendant acted recldessly for all of these offenses,7 but the indictment did not contain

language to that effect.

Nevertheless, Gill never objected to the indxctnient. The record shows that he had

notice of the offenses with which he was charged. After the trial court overruled his

motion to suppress, he entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to reduced

charges. The record does not show that he was prejudiced by the indictment's defects.or

that the defects permeated the entire proceedings. This case is not that rare case that

involves a structural defect

Therefore, we apply a plain-error analysis. Our review of the record does not

demonstrate that the error rose to the level of plain error. We cannot hold that, but for the

error, the results of the proceeding would have been otherwise, or that we must reverse

Gill's convictions to prevent a manifest miscarria,ge of justice.8 Consequently, we overrule

GiIl's assignment of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.

A certified copy of this judgment entry is the mandate, which shall be sent to the

trial court under App.R 27. Costs shall be taxed under App.R. 24.

SUNDERMANN, P.J., PAI1vTER and DINIKEI.ACKFR, JJ.

To the Clerk:Enter upon the Journal of the Court on December 10, 2008

per order of the CourtPresiding Judge

7 R.C. 2901.21(B); Colon I, supra.8 See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 552 N.E.2d 913; State v. Cooperrider (1983), 4Ohio St.3d 226, 448 N.E.2d 452; State v. Brundage, lst Dist. No. C-o3o632, 2004-Ohio-6436.

3