[Cite as State v. Dickerson, 2022-Ohio-3012.]

COURT OF APPEALS

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.

 Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J.

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

-vsCase No. 2022 CA 0027

TRAEVON DICKERSON

 Defendant-Appellant O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Richland County Court of 

Common Pleas, Case No. 2021-CR-0842

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 29, 2022

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

GARY BISHOP TRAEVON DICKERSON

Prosecuting Attorney 661 Courtwright Blvd.

Richland County, Ohio Mansfield, Ohio 44907

JODIE SCHUMACHER 

First Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

38 South Park Street – Second Floor

Mansfield, Ohio 44902 
Hoffman, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Traevon Dickerson appeals the judgment entered by 

the Richland County Common Pleas Court overruling his motion for re-examination of his 

case. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶2} On November 5, 2021, Appellant was indicted by the Richland County 

Grand Jury with two counts of domestic violence. His mother was named as the victim in 

one count, and his sister was named as the victim in the second count. The police report 

from the date in question indicated Appellant was taken to the hospital prior to being taken 

to jail.

{¶3} Appellant entered a plea of guilty to count two, in which his sister was the 

victim, on December 29, 2021. Count one was dismissed by the State. Appellant was 

sentenced to thirty months of community control.

{¶4} Appellant filed a motion on March 28, 2022, asking the trial court to reexamine and/or retry his case. He attached a hospital report from the night of the incident 

to his motion, which demonstrated Appellant received injuries to his back on the night of 

the incident giving rise to the indictment. 

{¶5} The trial court overruled the motion. It is from the April 6, 2022 judgment of 

the trial court Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:

1 A rendition of the facts is unnecessary to our resolution of the issues raised on appeal.
I. THE MANSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT ABUSED THEIR 

AUTHORITY BY: (1) DISREGARDING APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR 

THEM TO REVIEW THE VIDEO EVIDENCE HE RECORDED ON 

OCTOBER 2ND, 2021. (2) ARRESTING THE APPELLANT WITHOUT 

HAVING ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT HE VIOLATED O.R.C. 

2919.25(B). (3) MAKING NO ATTEMPTS TO ADVISE THE PARTIES 

RETURN TO THEIR RESPECTIVE HOMES, DETAILING THAT A 

MEETING WITH THE LAW DIRECTOR COULD BE REQUESTED IF 

EITHER PARTY WISHES TO FILE CHARGES.

{¶6} At the outset we note Appellant’s three-part assignment of error is directed 

toward the conduct of police in investigating the case, and does not claim error in the trial 

court’s entry overruling his motion to re-examine the evidence, which is the entry 

Appellant is appealing.

{¶7} The trial court stated as follows in its judgment overruling Appellant’s 

motion:

The Defendant has not established what significance the medical 

records have in this case. First, as stated above, the police report indicates 

that the Defendant was injured during the altercation and was taken to the 

hospital; therefore, this is not new information. Second, the fact that the 

Defendant was injured in no way affects whether or not he committed a 

crime. Individuals are often injured during the commission of a crime and 
domestic violence/assaultive situations occasionally involve mutual combat 

and injuries to both parties. The fact that he also sustained injuries does 

not prove that the Defendant did not assault his sister. Further, the 

Defendant has presented no evidence as to who injured him and how. 

Finally, the Defendant entered a plea of guilty. The Defendant’s change of 

plea waives any right he has to raise any claims, issue[s], or defenses that 

occurred prior to his change of plea.

{¶8} Judgment, April 6, 2022.

{¶9} We find the trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion for the 

reasons stated in its judgment entry as cited above. Although Appellant claims in his 

reply brief his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, Appellant did 

not timely appeal his conviction, and did not file a motion to withdraw the plea in the trial 

court. Further, Appellant has not provided this Court with the transcript of the plea 

hearing, and this Court therefore must presume regularity in the plea proceeding. Knapp 

v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384, 385 (1980).

{¶10} Appellant’s motion to re-examine the case is in its essence a delayed 

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. However, a guilty 

plea waives the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. 

See, e.g. State v. Jones, 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-14-042, 2015-Ohio-4209, ¶ 10. A guilty 

plea acts as a conviction, requiring no findings of fact or verdict to support it. Id. at ¶9. 

Therefore, there was no “evidence” for the trial court to re-examine in the instant case, as 
Appellant’s guilty plea obviated the requirement of evidentiary support for the trial court’s 

finding of guilt.

{¶11} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Richland County 

Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P.J.

Wise, John, J. and

Baldwin, J. concur