State v. Ellis
This text of 2012 Ohio 437 (State v. Ellis) 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.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Ellis, 2012-Ohio-437.]
COURT OF APPEALS PERRY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. : Hon. John W. Wise, J. -vs- : : Case No. 11-CA-12 TOMMA M. ELLIS : : : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Perry County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 10-CR-0070
JUDGMENT: DISMISSED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 30, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant: For Appellee:
JASON A. SARVER JOSEPH A. FLAUTT 123 S. Broad St. 111 N. High St. Suite 314 P.O. Box 569 Lancaster, OH 43130 New Lexington, OH 43764-0569 Delaney, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Tomma M. Ellis appeals the August 26, 2011
judgment entry of the Perry County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-Appellee is the
State of Ohio.
{¶ 2} This case comes to us on the accelerated calendar. App. R. 11.1, which
governs accelerated calendar cases, provides in pertinent part:
{¶ 3} “(E) Determination and judgment on appeal.
{¶ 4} “The appeal will be determined as provided by App.R. 11.1. It shall be
sufficient compliance with App.R. 12(A) for the statement of the reason for the court's
decision as to each error to be in brief and conclusionary form.
{¶ 5} “The decision may be by judgment entry in which case it will not be
published in any form.”
{¶ 6} This appeal shall be considered in accordance with the aforementioned
rule.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶ 7} On October 1, 2010, the Perry County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on
three counts of aggravated trafficking in drugs with forfeiture specifications in violation
of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)(a) and (b). On February 16, 2011, Appellant pleaded guilty as
charged. The trial court accepted the pleas and ordered a presentence investigation.
{¶ 8} On March 24, 2011, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw her guilty pleas.
A hearing was held on March 29, 2011. By judgment entry filed April 11, 2011, the
trial court denied the motion. {¶ 9} A sentencing hearing was held on April 21, 2011. By termination
judgment entry filed April 27, 2011, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 18 months in
prison.
{¶ 10} On April 28, 2011, Appellant filed an appeal of the decision to
deny her pre-sentence motion to withdraw her guilty pleas in State of Ohio v. Tomma
M. Ellis, 5th Dist. No. 11-CA-9, 2011-Ohio-5216.
{¶ 11} Appellant filed a motion for judicial release on June 2, 2011. The
State filed a response to the motion. On June 20, 2011, the trial court denied the
motion for judicial release.
{¶ 12} Appellant then filed a motion to withdraw her guilty pleas on June
30, 2011. Appellant argued that the State breached the plea agreement by opposing
the motion for judicial release. At the plea hearing, the State acknowledged it would
remain neutral if there was an application for judicial release. Ellis at ¶ 13.
{¶ 13} Appellant filed a second motion for judicial release on August 2,
2011.
{¶ 14} On August 26, 2011, the trial court issued a judgment entry on
Appellant’s motion to withdraw her guilty pleas and motion for judicial release. The
entry stated in part:
{¶ 15} “The Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on these Motions due
to the Notice of Appeal filed in this case. The Entry, which was filed herein June 26,
2011 is, therefore, vacated.”
{¶ 16} Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of the August 26, 2011
judgment entry on September 22, 2011. {¶ 17} On October 7, 2011, this Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to
deny Appellant’s pre-sentence motion to withdraw her guilty pleas in Ellis.
{¶ 18} We now review Appellant’s appeal of the August 26, 2011
judgment entry. Appellant raises one Assignment of Error:
{¶ 19} “I. THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT LACKED JURISDICTION TO
CONSIDER APPELLANT’S REQUEST(S) FOR JUDICIAL RELEASE.”
I
{¶ 20} Before this Court can review the merits of Appellant’s Assignment
of Error, we must first determine whether we have jurisdiction to consider this matter.
In the August 26, 2011 judgment entry, the trial court determined it would make no
decision on Appellant’s motions for judicial release and motion to withdraw her guilty
pleas while Appellant’s direct appeal was pending.
{¶ 21} Appellant argues in her Assignment of Error that it was error for
the trial court to find that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on her motion for judicial release.
We note that Appellant does not raise argument regarding her motion to withdraw her
guilty pleas in her Assignment of Error or brief, so we focus only on Appellant’s
assigned error.
{¶ 22} We find the issue of a motion for judicial release filed while an
appeal is pending has been discussed by the Third District Court of Appeals in State
v. Cook, 3rd Dist. No. 14-04-36, 2005-Ohio-4448. In that case, the appellant was
convicted on two counts of non-support of defendants. Thirty days after his
conviction, the appellant filed a motion for judicial release. The trial court held a hearing on the motion and denied the appellant’s request. The trial court determined it
could take no action on the motion while the appellant’s appeal was pending. It
determined it would hold the motion for ninety days and if the time elapsed and the
appellant’s appeal was still pending, it would deny the motion. Id. at ¶4-5, 24.
{¶ 23} The appellant argued the trial court “erred by refusing to rule on
his motion for judicial relief on the mistaken belief that it did not have jurisdiction.” Id.
at ¶25. The Third District held:
{¶ 24} “Generally, a trial court loses jurisdiction to take action in a case
after an appeal has been filed. State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges (1978), 55
Ohio St.2d 94, 97, 378 N.E.2d 162. It does retain jurisdiction, however, ‘over issues
not inconsistent with that of the appellate court to review, affirm, modify or reverse the
appealed judgment, such as the collateral issues like contempt, appointment of a
receiver and injunction.’ Id.
{¶ 25} “We need not reach the issue of the trial court's jurisdiction over
this matter, however, because the record before us does not reveal whether the trial
court ever issued an entry denying Cook's motion for judicial release after the allotted
ninety days had passed. In the absence of an entry of judgment, we have no
jurisdiction over the trial court's action. A motion that is pending indicates there is no
final appealable order. Caruthers v. Caruthers, 4th Dist. No. 00CA09, 2001-Ohio-
2388.” Id. at ¶26-27.
{¶ 26} In our case, the August 26, 2011 judgment entry does not deny
(or grant) Appellant’s motions for judicial release. The entry in fact vacates the trial
court’s initial denial of Appellant’s first motion for judicial release. The effect of the August 26, 2011 judgment entry is to determine that the motions for judicial release
will remain pending while Appellant’s direct appeal is before this Court. Appellant’s
direct appeal was resolved on October 7, 2011.
{¶ 27} Under these facts and based on the analysis of State v. Cook, we
find there is no final appealable order before this Court for our resolution.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2012 Ohio 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ellis-ohioctapp-2012.