Opinion
C.A. No. 17CA011143
06-29-2018
STATE OF OHIO Appellee v. MICHAEL HAMILTON Appellant
APPEARANCES: CHRISTINE AGNELLO RUSSO, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. RICHARD KRAY, Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE AVON LAKE MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO
CASE No. TRC 1601457 A
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
TEODOSIO, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Michael Hamilton, appeals from an order declaring the forfeiture of his driver's license in the Avon Lake Municipal Court. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} The Ohio State Highway Patrol conducted a traffic stop of Mr. Hamilton's vehicle and he subsequently performed poorly on several field sobriety tests. He was arrested and charged with two counts of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs ("OVI") as well as a marked lanes violation.
{¶3} On October 13, 2016, Mr. Hamilton pled no contest to one of the OVIs and the trial court found him guilty of the offense. The remaining charges were dismissed. The court sentenced Mr. Hamilton to 90 days in jail and suspended 80 days upon his compliance with intensive supervised probation for one year. The remaining 10 days in jail were to be served starting on February 5, 2017. The court also fined Mr. Hamilton $750.00. At a review hearing on February 3, 2017, the trial court granted Mr. Hamilton a continuance of his date to report to the jail. Mr. Hamilton then filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied on March 2, 2017. He filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on March 10, 2017. At a hearing on April 13, 2017, the court granted Mr. Hamilton another continuance, allowing him to report to the jail on June 4, 2017. The court also gave him 90 days to pay the balance of his fines and court costs. Also on April 13, 2017, the court issued a judgment entry declaring the forfeiture of Mr. Hamilton's driver's license and ordering the clerk of courts to furnish that information to the registrar of motor vehicles after 90 days.
{¶4} Mr. Hamilton now appeals from the trial court's order declaring the forfeiture of his driver's license. He raises five assignments of error for this Court's review.
{¶5} For ease of analysis, we will consolidate Mr. Hamilton's assignments of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE APPELLANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AND HIS SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION[.]
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR TWO
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S SIXTH AND FOURTEEN (SIC) AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THREE
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE CORRECT LEGAL REASONING IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN THE DECISION TO DENY THE APPELLANTS (SIC) MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR FOUR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THE DEFENDANT'S PLEA WAS VOLUNTARY (SIC), KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY GIVEN.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR FIVE
THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY ADVISE THE APPELLANT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AT THE CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING.
{¶6} In his assignments of error, Mr. Hamilton argues that the trial court committed multiple errors in its acceptance of his no contest plea and its denial of his motion to withdraw his plea and motion for reconsideration.
{¶7} "This Court is obligated to raise sua sponte questions related to our jurisdiction." In re Estate of Bond, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 16AP0063, 2017-Ohio-9076, ¶ 2. On July 17, 2017, we issued a magistrate's order questioning our jurisdiction to consider this appeal because Mr. Hamilton, in his notice of appeal, specifically appealed only from the trial court's judgment entry/declaration of forfeiture, dated April 13, 2017. We recognized that Mr. Hamilton never appealed from his sentencing order, dated October 13, 2016, nor did he appeal from the order denying his motion to withdraw his plea, dated March 7, 2017. The parties were ordered to file responses addressing the issue of this Court's jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
{¶8} In his response, Mr. Hamilton stated that he is "appealing his plea, sentencing, the order denying his motion to vacate plea, and the [c]ourt's most recent order of April 13, 2017, which denied his motion for reconsideration on his motion to vacate plea." He conceded that "[e]ach of the [c]ourt [o]rders were attached to the docketing statement, but only the docket itself shows the reiteration of the sentencing and additional denial of the [m]otion for [r]econsideration." (Emphasis added.) According to Mr. Hamilton, "[a] [c]ourt speak through it's [sic] docket * * *." However, this is an inaccurate statement of the law, as this Court has stated that "'[a] court speaks through its journal entries, not through its docket sheet.'" Bennett v. Cardarelli, 9th Dist. Summit No. 16685, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 4095, *3 (Sept. 14, 1994), quoting In re Estate of Stevenson, 64 Ohio App.2d 187, 191 (6th Dist.1979).
{¶9} Mr. Hamilton's argument that this Court has jurisdiction to consider his appeal of these issues based on notes in the online docket indicating a "reiteration" of his sentence and the denial of a motion, which information is clearly not included in the trial court's April 13th judgment entry, is patently without merit. "Where the journal entry and docket sheet conflict, the journal entry controls." Bennett at *3. Here, the trial court's April 13th entry speaks exclusively to the forfeiture of Mr. Hamilton's driver's license. Mr. Hamilton is seemingly attempting to circumvent the time restrictions listed in App.R. 4 by using docket notes and a separate forfeiture entry to bootstrap multiple untimely appeals of his plea, his sentencing entry, the denial of his motion to vacate his plea, and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. We first note that a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment is a nullity, the trial court's ruling on such a motion is a nullity, and a party cannot appeal from such a judgment. State v. Stone, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 13CA010400, 2013-Ohio-5782, ¶ 5. More importantly, Mr. Hamilton never timely appealed any of those entries or issues and never sought leave from this Court to file any delayed appeals pursuant to App.R. 5.
{¶10} An appeal is initiated when the appellant files a notice of appeal. See App.R. 3(A). "The notice of appeal * * * shall designate the judgment, order or part thereof ap[p]ealed from * * *." App.R. 3(D). Mr. Hamilton's notice of appeal specifically states he is "appealing * * * from the final judgment entered in this action on April 13, 2017." Therefore, the scope of Mr. Hamilton's appeal of the trial court's April 13, 2017, judgment entry is limited to issues pertaining to that entry alone. Because none of Mr. Hamilton's assignments of error raise any issues germane to the trial court's judgment entry/declaration of forfeiture, we conclude that they are beyond the limited scope of this appeal and not properly before this Court. See State v. Crangle, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28896, 2018-Ohio-2173, ¶ 6, quoting State v. Dixon, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21463, 2004-Ohio-1593, ¶ 7, quoting Slone v. Bd. of Embalmers & Funeral Dirs. of Ohio, 123 Ohio App.3d 545, 548, (8th Dist.1997) ("An appellate court 'is without jurisdiction to review a judgment or order that is not designated in the appellant's notice of appeal.'").
{¶11} Accordingly, as Mr. Hamilton has not challenged the sole issue of the April 13, 2017, judgment entry—i.e., the forfeiture of his driver's license—the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in that regard.
III.
{¶12} We decline to address Mr. Hamilton's assignments of error. The judgment of the Avon Lake Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Avon Lake Municipal Court, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
/s/_________
THOMAS A. TEODOSIO
FOR THE COURT CARR, J.
CALLAHAN, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
CHRISTINE AGNELLO RUSSO, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. RICHARD KRAY, Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.