State v. Littlepage

2024 Ohio 2231

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 12, 2024
• Docket: C-230368
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Littlepage, 2024-Ohio-2231.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-230368 TRIAL NO. B-1304393 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : O P I N I O N.

DANIEL LITTLEPAGE, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed as Modified

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 12, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Daniel Littlepage, pro se. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

CROUSE, Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Daniel Littlepage appeals the judgment of the

Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas denying his Crim.R. 32.1 motion to

withdraw his guilty plea. Because the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the

motion, we modify the court’s judgment to a dismissal and affirm the court’s judgment

as modified.

Factual and Procedural History

{¶2} Littlepage was convicted in January 2014 upon his guilty plea to

aggravated murder with a gun specification, in connection with the shooting death of

his brother. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 23 years to life. He

unsuccessfully challenged his conviction in his direct appeal and various

postconviction motions filed between 2014 and 2020. See State v. Littlepage, 1st Dist.

Hamilton No. C-140574 (Aug. 26, 2015) (affirming conviction); State v. Littlepage,

1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140760 (Dec. 4, 2015) (affirming denial of petition for

postconviction relief); State v. Littlepage, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160918, 2018-

Ohio-1382 (affirming denial of application for postconviction DNA testing); State v.

Littlepage, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-170207 and C-170157, 2018-Ohio-2959

(affirming lower court’s dismissal of motion to vacate sentence and motion requesting

grand jury testimony); State v. Littlepage, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180524 (Nov. 16,

2018) (affirming as modified the denial of a Crim.R. 32.1 motion); State v. Littlepage,

1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190493 (Sept. 30, 2020) (affirming as modified the denial of

successive postconviction petition).

{¶3} In December 2022, Littlepage moved to withdraw his guilty plea,

arguing that the trial judge was biased against him and had tampered with court

records. Specifically, Littlepage contends that although he had made a presentence

motion to withdraw his guilty plea prior to the start of his sentencing hearing, which

the trial court denied, this is not reflected in the sentencing transcript. He believes

2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

that the trial judge colluded with the court reporter to alter the sentencing transcript.

In support of this claim, he submits the unexecuted court reporter’s certification page

from the sentencing transcript.

{¶4} The state moved to dismiss the motion to withdraw, maintaining that

the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. The lower court agreed, and

denied the motion. Littlepage now appeals.

No Jurisdiction to Entertain Motion

{¶5} In two assignments of error, Littlepage contends that the common pleas

court abused its discretion by denying his Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty

plea and by failing to address whether a fraud was committed upon the court, and

whether that fraud constituted a “manifest injustice” supporting his motion to

withdraw. We consider these assignments together and overrule them because the

common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to consider the Crim.R. 32.1 motion to

withdraw.

{¶6} In State v. Hill, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190337, 2020-Ohio-3271, this

court noted:

A trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to

withdraw a guilty plea after the conviction based upon that plea has

been affirmed in the direct appeal, when the issue presented in the

motion does not depend for its resolution upon evidence outside the

record of the proceedings leading to that conviction and thus could have

been raised on direct appeal. State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v.

Judges, 55 Ohio St.2d 94, 97-98, 378 N.E.2d 162 (1978) (holding that

Crim.R. 32.1 “does not confer upon the trial court the power to vacate a

judgment which has been affirmed by the appellate court, for this action

would affect the decision of the reviewing court, which is not within the

power of the trial court to do”); State v. West, 2017-Ohio-5596, 93

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

N.E.3d 1221, ¶ 10-20 (1st Dist.) (following State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St.3d

1, 2011-Ohio-5028, 959 N.E.2d 516, to hold that an appeals court’s

decision affirming a conviction upon a guilty plea does not deprive a

lower court of jurisdiction to entertain a postsentence Crim.R. 32.1

motion to withdraw that plea, if the issue presented by the motion could

not have been raised on direct appeal).

Id. at ¶ 10.

{¶7} While it is unclear why Littlepage’s copy of his sentencing transcript

contains an unexecuted court reporter’s certification page, the record demonstrates

that the sentencing transcript was filed in Littlepage’s direct appeal on November 21,

2014, and includes the executed court reporter’s certification page. Thus, any

challenge to the accuracy of the sentencing transcript could have been raised on direct

appeal. Because Littlepage’s challenge does not rely upon evidence outside the record

of proceedings leading to the conviction, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to

consider Littlepage’s postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

{¶8} Because the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the

Crim.R. 32.1 motion, the motion was subject to dismissal. Accordingly, we modify the

judgment appealed from to reflect the dismissal of the motion and affirm the judgment

as modified. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(a).

Judgment affirmed as modified.

ZAYAS, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., concur.

Please note:

The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.