State v. Lockhart

2025 Ohio 5440

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 5, 2025
• Docket: 2025 CAA 07 0061
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Lockhart, 2025-Ohio-5440.]

COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 25 CAA 07 0061

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 06 CRI 01 0011 JOHN LOCKHART, JR., Judgment: Affirmed Defendant – Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: December 5, 2025

BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin; Andrew J. King; Kevin W. Popham, Judges

APPEARANCES: MELISSA A. SCHIFFEL, Prosecuting Attorney, KATHERYN L. MUNGER, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee; JOHN LOCKART, JR., Pro Se, for Defendant-Appellant.

Baldwin, P.J.

{¶1} The appellant, John Lockhart, Jr., appeals the judgment entry of the

Delaware County Court of Common Pleas denying his Motion for an Order to Compel the

Clerk to Comply with ODRC Policy. The appellee is the State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE

{¶2} In 2006, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to one count of Rape

in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) and three counts of gross sexual imposition in

violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4).

{¶3} In 2008, this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. {¶4} On April 21, 2025, the appellant filed a motion for a new trial. The motion

was appealed and is pending in a separate case.

{¶5} On July 2, 2025, under this case number, the appellant filed a motion asking

the trial court to compel the clerk to send all documents to him by “legal mail” requiring his

signature. The trial court denied this motion.

{¶6} The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and is asking this court to find

the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to compel the clerk to send all

documents by “legal mail.”

I.

{¶7} The appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant

his motion to compel the clerk to send all his documents via “legal mail.” We disagree.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

{¶8} To find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court’s decision

was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment.

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983).

ANALYSIS

{¶9} As noted above, the appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his

motion to compel the clerk to send all his documents via “legal mail.” The appellant does

not argue the clerk failed to serve documents in accordance with the law, just that he has

not received them.

{¶10} The trial court correctly observed that ODRC’s internal policy and

procedures for Incarcerated Population Legal Mail is not mandatory, but rather

discretionary for use when sending confidential legal mail. ODRC Policy 75-MAL-03 (Incarcerated Population Legal Mail). The trial court further notes that nothing sent by the

clerk is confidential in nature. The appellant has not identified any mail he received or

should have received via mail which was of a confidential nature appropriate for the

ODRC’s legal mail process.

{¶11} Accordingly, the appellant has not shown the trial court acted unreasonably,

arbitrarily, or unconscionably. The appellant’s assignment of error is overruled.

CONCLUSION

{¶12} Based upon the foregoing, the judgment of the Delaware County Court of

Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.

{¶13} Costs to the appellant.

By: Baldwin, P.J.

King, J. and

Popham, J. concur.