[Cite as State v. Curtis, 2023-Ohio-953.]

COURT OF APPEALS

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.

 Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

-vsCase No. CT2022-0071

RODNEY A. CURTIS

 Defendant-Appellant O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court 

of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2015-

0117

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 23, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

RON WELCH RODNEY A. CURTIS 

Prosecuting Attorney Inmate No. A721-152

Muskingum County, Ohio Noble Correctional Institute 

15708 McConnelsville Road

JOHN CONNOR DEVER Caldwell, Ohio 43724

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

Muskingum County, Ohio 

27 North Fifth Street

P.O. Box 189

Zanesville, Ohio 43702 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0071 2

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Rodney A. Curtis appeals the judgment entered by the 

Muskingum County Common Pleas Court overruling his motion to inspect the

presentence investigation report (hereinafter “PSI”) filed in his case. Plaintiff-appellee is 

the state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} On August 20, 2014, Detective Welker of the Muskingum County Sheriff's 

Office filed an affidavit to receive a search warrant allowing the Sheriff's Office to seize 

Appellant’s cell phone. The affidavit cites to allegations from a minor female resident at 

Avondale Youth Center, where Appellant worked as a Child Care worker. The victim 

alleged she had sexual contact with Appellant in numerous locations, and she had taken 

nude pictures of herself on Appellant’s cell phone. Detective Welker talked to Appellant 

about these allegations and asked to see the cell phone. Appellant declined to show 

Detective Welker his cell phone, but admitted the victim sometimes took his cell phone 

and took pictures of herself with the phone.

{¶3} After retrieving the phone, Detective Welker filed for another search warrant 

on August 21, 2014, to be able to search the phone's data for evidence of the criminal 

allegations. The Sheriff's Office searched the phone on August 22, 2014, but was unable 

to download the data because their cable was not compatible with the newer phone. The 

Sheriff's Office continued and completed downloading the data on September 8, 2014.

{¶4} Appellant was indicted on March 18, 2015, on 63 counts of Illegal Use of 

Minor in Nudity Oriented Material or Performance, each a felony of the second degree, 

and 11 counts of Sexual Battery, each a felony of the third degree. He retained counsel 

to represent him.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0071 3

{¶5} Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence. A hearing was held, and 

the trial court denied the motion to suppress. Appellant then entered a negotiated plea 

of guilty to counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 64, 68, and 74. In exchange for his plea, 

the State dismissed the remaining counts. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate 

prison sentence of eleven years. Appellant did not file a timely direct appeal, but he 

attempted to file a delayed appeal on November 23, 2016. This Court denied Appellant’s 

motion to file a delayed appeal by Judgment Entry filed January 3, 2017. 

{¶6} On November 23, 2016, Appellant also filed a petition for post-conviction 

relief in the trial court. On February 13, 2018, the trial court denied the petition. This Court 

affirmed. State v. Curtis, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2018-0014, 2018-Ohio-2822. 

Appellant filed a second petition for post-conviction relief on November 8, 2018. The 

petition was denied by the trial court, and this Court once again affirmed. State v. Curtis,

5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2019-0001, 2019-Ohio-2587.

{¶7} On July 5, 2022, Appellant filed a motion to inspect the PSI filed in his case. 

Appellant argued he did not receive a copy prior to sentencing, and was therefore unable 

to object to any potential inaccuracies in the report which might have affected his 

sentence. The trial court denied the request on July 18, 2022.

{¶8} Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal from the July 18, 2022 

judgment, and a motion for delayed appeal. The State failed to respond to the motion, 

and on October 25, 2022, this Court granted the motion for delayed appeal. It is from the 

July 18, 2022 judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning as 

error:
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0071 4

I. APPELLANT’S SENTENCES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RUN 

CONCURRENTLY RATHER THAN CONSECUTIVELY.

II. COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CONSULT 

WITH CURTIS CONCERNING HIS RIGHT AND/OR DESIRE TO FILE A 

NOTICE OF DIRECT APPEAL. COUNSEL WAS FURTHER 

INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF DIRECT APPEAL.

III. COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INFORM 

APPELLANT OF THE STATE’S OFFER OF A SEVEN-YEAR JOINT 

RECOMMENDATION.

IV. APPELLANT WAS NEVER PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY 

TO REVIEW AND THEN CHALLENGE THE PRE-SENTENCE 

INVESTIGATION REPORT.

V. DISPARITY IN SENTENCING IN SIMILAR CASES 

DEMONSTRATES RACIAL AND GENDER BIAS EXHIBITED BY THE 

TRIAL JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR AGAINST APPELLANT AT HIS 

SENTENCING.

VI. THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF APPELLANT’S CELL 

PHONE AFTER THE INITIAL WARRANT EXPIRED, AND NO 

EXTENSIONS WERE REQUESTED, GRANTED, OR ISSUED, WAS 

ILLEGAL. THUS, THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY 

DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.

VII. THE STATE RELIED ON IMPLAUSIBLE OR IMPOSSIBLE 

EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY FORTY-EIGHT (48) COUNTS OF ILLEGAL USE 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0071 5

OF A MINOR IN NUDITY-ORIENTED MATERIAL OR PERFORMANCE 

(O.R.C. 2907.323).

VIII. THE STATE WITHHELD FAVORABLE EXCULPATORY 

INFORMATION FROM THE DEFENSE.

I., II., III., V., VI., VII., VIII.

{¶9} This Court granted delayed appeal only of the trial court’s entry filed July 

18, 2022, which overruled Appellant’s motion to inspect the PSI. Appellant’s first, second, 

third, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth assignments of error all address issues pertinent to 

the original judgment of conviction and sentencing, and do not claim error in the order 

appealed from in this case. We find the issues raised by these assignments of error are 

not properly before this Court at this time.

{¶10} Appellant’s first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth assignments 

of error are overruled.

IV.

{¶11} In his fourth assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in

denying his request to inspect his PSI.

{¶12} Appellant’s motion to review the report was filed on July 5, 2022, more than 

six years after he was sentenced on November 23, 2015.

{¶13} R.C. 2953.03 provides in pertinent part:

(B)(1) If a presentence investigation report is prepared pursuant to 

this section, section 2947.06 of the Revised Code, or Criminal Rule 32.2, 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0071 6

the court, at a reasonable time before imposing sentence, shall permit the 

defendant or the defendant's counsel to read the report, except that the 

court shall not permit the defendant or the defendant's counsel to read any 

of the following:

(a) Any recommendation as to sentence;

(b) Any diagnostic opinions that, if disclosed, the court believes might 

seriously disrupt a program of rehabilitation for the defendant;

(c) Any sources of information obtained upon a promise of 

confidentiality;

(d) Any other information that, if disclosed, the court believes might 

result in physical harm or some other type of harm to the defendant or to 

any other person.

(2) Prior to sentencing, the court shall permit the defendant and the 

defendant's counsel to comment on the presentence investigation report 

and, in its discretion, may permit the defendant and the defendant's counsel 

to introduce testimony or other information that relates to any alleged factual 

inaccuracy contained in the report. 

(C) A court's decision as to the content of a summary under division 

(B)(3) of this section or as to the withholding of information under division 

(B)(1)(a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section shall be considered to be within the 

discretion of the court. No appeal can be taken from either of those 

decisions, and neither of those decisions shall be the basis for a reversal of 

the sentence imposed.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0071 7

(D)(1) The contents of a presentence investigation report prepared 

pursuant to this section, section 2947.06 of the Revised Code, or Criminal 

Rule 32.2 and the contents of any written or oral summary of a presentence 

investigation report or of a part of a presentence investigation report 

described in division (B)(3) of this section are confidential information and 

are not a public record. The court, an appellate court, authorized probation 

officers, investigators, and court personnel, the defendant, the defendant's 

counsel, the prosecutor who is handling the prosecution of the case against 

the defendant, and authorized personnel of an institution to which the 

defendant is committed may inspect, receive copies of, retain copies of, and 

use a presentence investigation report or a written or oral summary of a 

presentence investigation only for the purposes of or only as authorized by 

Criminal Rule 32.2 or this section, division (F)(1) of section 2953.08, section 

2947.06, or another section of the Revised Code.

{¶14} Pursuant to R.C. 2951.03(D)(1), there are three instances in which the 

contents of a presentence investigation report can be disclosed: (1) pursuant to R.C. 

2951.03(B), to the defendant or his counsel prior to the imposition of his sentence; (2) 

pursuant to R.C. 2947.06, to the trial court when it is making its sentencing determination; 

and (3) pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(F), to the appellate court when it is reviewing the 

sentencing determination on appeal. State ex rel. Sharpless v. Gierke, 137 Ohio App.3d 

821, 825, 739 N.E.2d 1231, 1233 (11th Dist. 2000). If each of these three instances have 

already occurred in a criminal case, the general rule concerning the confidentiality of the 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0071 8

report prohibits the disclosure of the report. Id. A criminal defendant therefore has no 

legal right to obtain and review a copy of his presentence investigation report after he has 

been sentenced in a criminal action. Id. at 1233-34.

{¶15} Because Appellant filed his motion to review the report after he had been 

sentenced, Appellant had no legal right to review the report, and we find the trial court 

did not err in denying his request. The fourth assignment of error is overruled.

{¶16} The judgment of the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, J.

Gwin, P.J. and

Baldwin, J. concur