State v. Atakpu

2023 Ohio 3812

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 20, 2023
• Docket: 29792
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Atakpu, 2023-Ohio-3812.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO : : Appellee : C.A. No. 29792 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 1999 CR 02375 : PETER JEMMA ATAKPU : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas : Court) Appellant : :

...........

OPINION

Rendered on October 20, 2023

PETER JEMMA ATAKPU, Pro Se Appellant

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by MICHAEL P. ALLEN, Attorney for Appellee

.............

HUFFMAN, J.

{¶ 1} Peter J. Atakpu appeals from the trial court’s order overruling his motion for

records after Atakpu requested certified copies of the stenographer’s notes from certain

trial court hearings held on March 23 and April 6, 2000. For the reasons outlined below,

we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I. Facts and Procedural History -2-

{¶ 2} In April 2000, Atakpu pled guilty and was convicted of murder, escape,

having weapons while under disability, and four counts of felonious assault. For these

convictions, Atakpu was sentenced to a cumulative prison term of 34 years to life.

{¶ 3} In May 2018, a third party, on behalf of Atakpu, filed a motion for transcripts,

specifically requesting certified written transcripts from his March 23 and April 6, 2000,

plea and sentencing hearings, respectively. In January 2019, Atakpu filed his own

praecipe for the same transcripts. In February 2019, the trial court overruled Atakpu’s

request for transcripts, finding that Atakpu had failed to demonstrate that the information

sought in the public record was necessary to support a justiciable claim. Despite

overruling Atakpu’s request, the trial court provided him with a copy of the transcript from

the March 23, 2000 hearing, even though he was not entitled to a copy at the court’s

expense. The trial court also stated that no transcript had ever been prepared of the April

6, 2000 hearing, but that the court was prepared to make the stenographer’s notes

available to Mike Mobley Reporting for transcription if Atakpu contacted that company

and made his own payment arrangements for the transcription.

{¶ 4} On June 30, 2022, Atakpu filed a motion to preserve the record, requesting

that the trial court preserve the stenographer’s notes from the April 6, 2000 hearing. On

August 8, 2022, the trial court filed an entry stating that the stenographer’s notes in

question had been misplaced and were no longer available.

{¶ 5} On March 6, 2023, Atakpu filed a motion for records, again requesting

“certified” copies of the stenographer’s notes from the March 23 and April 6, 2000

hearings. On March 14, 2023, Atakpu filed a motion to appoint an official shorthand -3-

reporter pursuant to R.C. 2301.18. On April 6, 2023, the trial court overruled Atakpu’s

motion for records, referring Atakpu to the court’s previous order from February 2019 in

which the court provided him with a copy of the transcript from his March 23, 2000 hearing

and set forth the procedure for Atakpu to obtain transcription of the stenographer’s notes

from the April 6, 2000 hearing, while reiterating that the April 6 notes had been misplaced

and were no longer available. The trial court never explicitly ruled on Atakpu’s motion to

appoint an official shorthand reporter. Thereafter, Atakpu filed his notice of appeal.

II. Assignments of Error and Analysis

{¶ 6} Atakpu raises the following four assignments of error, which we will consider

together.

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION WHEN IT

FAILED TO FULLY ADJUDICATE APPELLANT’S CLAIM.

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED

TO DECIDE UPON ALL MATTERS WITHIN APPELLANT’S MOTION TO

APPOINT OFFICIAL SHORTHAND REPORTER PURSUANT OHIO

REVISED CODE § 2301.18.

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN ITS

DECISION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.

THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED OHIO CIV.R. 1 WHEN IT FAILED

TO FOLLOW THE APPLICABLE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE i.e.

OHIO EVID.R. 401.

{¶ 7} The crux of Atakpu’s appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion when -4-

it denied his motion for records. Atakpu specifically argues that the trial court abused its

discretion when it failed to recognize that Atakpu would be unable to arrange for

transcription with Mike Mobley Reporting as previously instructed by the court because

that company no longer provided transcription services. Atakpu argues that the trial court

failed to consider the evidence submitted by Atakpu demonstrating that he was unable to

arrange for transcription services and that the court failed to appoint a shorthand reporter

as required by R.C. 2301.18. We disagree.

{¶ 8} Trial courts have broad discretion in ruling on motions for records, and such

orders are reviewed based on an abuse of discretion. See State v. Atakpu, 2d Dist.

Montgomery No. 25232, 2013-Ohio-4392, ¶ 7, citing State ex rel. Rittner v. Barber, 6th

Dist. Fulton No. F-05-020, 2006-Ohio-592, ¶ 31. To find an abuse of discretion, we must

determine that the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

{¶ 9} At issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled

Atakpu’s motion for records pertaining to the stenographer’s notes from Atakpu’s April 6,

2000 hearing. In overruling Atakpu’s most recent motion for records, the trial court

explained to Atakpu that the stenographer’s notes from the April 6, 2000 hearing had

been misplaced and were unavailable. As such, the trial court was unable to provide the

notes to Atakpu for him to arrange for transcription. Under these circumstances, we

cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Atakpu’s request for the

subject records.

{¶ 10} Although the State argues that the trial court did not rule on Atakpu’s -5-

request for an official reporter and, thus, that there is no final appealable order with

respect to that issue, we find that Atakpu’s request for an official reporter was implicitly

overruled when the trial court found that the stenographer’s notes from the April 6, 2000

hearing were misplaced and unavailable. Even if an official reporter had been appointed

for Atakpu per his request, such an appointment would have been futile because the

stenographer’s notes are no longer available for transcription.

{¶ 11} Atakpu’s assignments of error are overruled.

{¶ 12} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TUCKER, J. and EPLEY, J., concur.