State v. Davies

2020 Ohio 2993
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 18, 2020
Docket2019-A-0067
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 Ohio 2993 (State v. Davies) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Davies, 2020 Ohio 2993 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Davies, 2020-Ohio-2993.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : OPINION

Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2019-A-0067 - vs - :

ROBERT R. DAVIES, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

Civil Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court, Western District, Case No. 2017 MI 00025 W.

Judgment: Affirmed.

Cecilia M. Cooper, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Shelley M. Pratt, Assistant Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, Ohio 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Robert Davies, pro se, 7455 Harmon Road, Conneaut, Ohio 44030. (Defendant- Appellant).

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Robert R. Davies, was convicted of a misdemeanor in April 2000.

Twelve years later, due to a flawed complaint, his conviction was vacated and the case

was dismissed. Appellant therefore moved for reimbursement of fines and costs which

was overruled. Appellant did not appeal.

{¶2} Thereafter, appellant moved the trial court to vacate its order overruling his

motion for reimbursement. That motion was overruled and appellant appeals assigning the following as error:

{¶3} “The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to vacate the judgment

denying return of fines and court costs.”

{¶4} Appellant could have appealed the trial court’s order denying his motion for

reimbursement, but did not. Res judicata bars litigating in any proceeding, except a direct

appeal, any defense or claimed lack of due process that could have been raised on direct

appeal. State v. Hall, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2008-T-0051, 2009-Ohio-6379, ¶ 33,

quoting State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 671 N.E.2d 233 (1996), syllabus. Stated

otherwise, a motion to vacate may not be used as a substitute for appeal. State v. Weese,

9th Dist. Medina Nos. 2742-M and 2760-M, 1998 WL 239977 (May 13, 1998). Moreover,

reimbursement of fines and costs after reversal and dismissal is a due process issue.

Nelson v. Colorado,137 S.Ct. 1249, 197 L.Ed.2d 611 (2017).

{¶5} Because appellant’s motion to vacate is barred by res judicata, his

assignment of error lacks merit. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

MATT LYNCH, J.,

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nelson v. Colorado
581 U.S. 128 (Supreme Court, 2017)
State v. Szefcyk
671 N.E.2d 233 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 Ohio 2993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davies-ohioctapp-2020.