[Cite as State v. Neal, 2017-Ohio-47.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 LUCAS COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals Nos. L-16-1105 

 L-16-1106 

 Appellee L-16-1107 

v. Trial Court Nos. CR0200702127 

 CR0200901731 

Rochelle Neal CR0200902368 

Appellant DECISION AND JUDGMENT 

 Decided: January 6, 2017 

* * * * * 

 Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

 Claudia A. Ford, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

 Rochelle Neal, pro se. 

* * * * * 

 SINGER, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Rochelle Neal, filed a consolidated and accelerated appeal from 

the April 26, 2016 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas denying his 

motion for discovery pursuant to Crim.R. 16. Because we find the trial court did not err 

in denying the motion, we affirm. 
2.

{¶ 2} In 2007, appellant was convicted of attempted felonious assault and 

sentenced. He did not appeal from his conviction and sentence. After the victim of the 

attempted felonious assault died, appellant was charged with murder. Appellant entered a 

guilty plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 

L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), to a charge of involuntary manslaughter charged in a bill of 

information, and he was convicted and sentenced. The state entered a nolle prosequi and 

the murder charges were dismissed. No direct appeal was ever filed from either final 

judgment. 

{¶ 3} In the current case, appellant filed, pursuant to Crim.R. 16, a request for 

discovery of evidence the state had regarding his prior convictions and plea agreements 

in the case referenced above. The trial court denied the motion on April 26, 2016, 

finding a Crim.R. 16 discovery is applicable only to pending criminal proceedings prior 

to trial. Because appellant has already been convicted and sentenced, the trial court 

found the issues raised were barred under the doctrine of res judicata. Appellant appeals 

from the trial court’s judgment and asserts the following assignments of error: 

 ERROR I: DEFENDANT, ROCHELLE NEIL [SIC] WAS 

DENIED THE RECORD TO USE IN THIS APPEAL PROCESS, WHICH 

IS A VIOLATION OF GRIFFIN VS. ILLINOIS, AND DRAPER VS. 

WASHINGTON, AND APP.R. 9. 

 ERROR II: DEFENDANT, ROCHELLE NEILS [SIC] SIXTH 

AMENDMENT RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY LUCAS COUNTY 
3.

COURTS TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COURT APPOINTED 

[SIC] COUNSEL. 

 ERROR III: THE STATE OF OHIO VIOLATED DEFENDANT, 

ROCHELLE NEILS [SIC] “BRADY RIGHTS” BY WITHHOLDING 

VITAL EVIDENCE ‘FOUR’ [SIC] HIS DEFENSE. 

{¶ 4} Appellant argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred by 

denying his access to the record to use in this appeal process. Crim.R. 16 governs the 

discovery of evidence in pending criminal action. There is no pending criminal action in 

this case. Furthermore, Crim.R. 16 does not provide for a process for discovery of 

evidence relating to a postconviction relief petition or appellate review of a prior 

conviction. Therefore, we find the trial court did not err as a matter of law in denying 

appellant the relief sought. Appellant’s first assignment of error is not well-taken. 

{¶ 5} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that his trial counsel in 

his prior criminal action rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. This assignment of 

error is unrelated to the judgment which is the subject of this appeal. Therefore, we find 

appellant’s second assignment of error not well-taken. 

{¶ 6} In this third assignment of error, appellant argues the state withheld 

exculpatory evidence from appellant regarding his defense in the prior criminal 

proceedings. Again, this assignment of error is unrelated to the judgment which is the 

subject of this appeal. Therefore, appellant’s third assignment of error is not well-taken. 
4.

{¶ 7} Having found the trial court did not commit error prejudicial to appellant 

and that substantial justice has been done, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of 

Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant 

to App.R. 24. 

Judgment affirmed. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. 

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Arlene Singer, J. 

_______________________________ 

Thomas J. Osowik, J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

_______________________________ 

JUDGE