[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

- Appell ee Hon. John W. Wise , J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

- vs Case No. 2022 CA 0027 TRAEVON DICKERSON Defendant

- Appell ant 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

- Appell ee For Defendant

- Appell ant 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 44902Hoffman , 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 CASE 1 {¶2} On November 5, 2021, Appell ant 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 Ap pellant 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 c ommunity control. {¶4} Appellant filed a motion on March 28, 2022, asking the trial court to re

examine 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 bac k 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 2 ND , 2021. (2) ARRESTING THE APPELLANT WITHOUT HAVING ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT HE VIOLATED O.R.C. 2919.25(B). (3) M AKING 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 directe d 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 ove rruling 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 hospita l; 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 anddomestic violence/assaultive situations o ccasionally 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.
Final ly, 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 overr uling 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 suffici ency 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, asAppellant’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 Cou nty Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P. J. Wise, John, J. and Baldwin, J. concur