[Cite as State v. McCollim, 2011-Ohio-6751.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF LORAIN ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

LAWRENCE H. MCCOLLIM 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 11CA009952 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

ELYRIA MUNICIPAL COURT 

COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO 

CASE No. 2010CRB01810 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: December 29, 2011 

 

BELFANCE, Presiding Judge. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Lawrence McCollim has appealed, pro se, from the 

December 29, 2010 judgment entry of the Elyria Municipal Court. This Court affirms the trial 

court’s December 29, 2010 entry to the extent it denied Mr. McCollim’s untimely motion for a 

new trial. As Mr. McCollim’s assignments of error are not properly before this Court, we 

decline to address them. 

I. 

{¶2} On June 21, 2010, a complaint was filed in Elyria Municipal Court alleging that 

on June 19, 2010, Mr. McCollim committed the crime of assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13, a 

misdemeanor of the first degree. 

{¶3} The matter proceeded to a bench trial and Mr. McCollim was found guilty of 

assault. Mr. McCollim was sentenced to ten days jail and a $750.00 fine. Mr. McCollim’s jail 
2 

 

sentence was suspended, as was $300.00 of the fine. The judgment entry was journalized on 

November 16, 2010. 

{¶4} On December 15, 2010, Mr. McCollim, through counsel, filed an untimely motion 

for a new trial. See Crim.R. 33(B). 

{¶5} On December 29, 2010, the trial court issued an entry. The only portion of the 

entry which was final and appealable denied Mr. McCollim’s motion for a new trial. 

{¶6} Mr. McCollim has appealed, pro se, from the trial court’s December 29, 2010 

entry, raising eleven assignments of error for our review. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I 

“THE PROSECUTION ERRED BY WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE DURING 

DISCOVERY IN VIOLATION OF OHIO RULES OF CRIMINAL 

PROCEDURE R. NO. 16 (A).” 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II 

“THE PROSECUTION ERRED BY FAILING TO DISCLOSE, DURING 

DISCOVERY, THEIR INTENTION OF CALLING A SPECIALLY 

QUALIFIED OR EXPERT WITNESS AND FAILING TO HAVE THE 

WITNESS PROVIDE HIS RECORD, AS REQUIRED BY OHIO RULES OF 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE R. 16 (K).” 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III 

“THE PROSECUTION ERRED BY SUBORNING PERJURY IN VIOLATION 

OF OHIO RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT R. 8.4. (c).” 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV 

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ALLOWING THE STATE TO 

INTRODUCE STATE’S EXHIBIT NO. 8 BASED SOLELY ON THE 

TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS WHOM HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE 

UNTRUTHFUL AND UNBELIEVABLE IN OTHER TESTIMONY DURING 

QUESTIONING.” 
3 

 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V 

“THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED BY ALLOWING CANADIAN LAW TO 

INFLUENCE HIM IN HIS DECISION MAKING. THIS DENIED MCCOLLIM 

OF A FAIR TRIAL AS GUARANTEED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF 

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.” 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI 

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT CONDUCTING A PROPER 

SEPARATION OF WITNESSES.” 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VII 

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT RULING ON A MOTION FOR 

ACQUITTAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE STATE’S CASE. A VIOLATION OF 

OHIO RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE R.29 ( A ).” 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VIII 

“THE PROSECUTION ERRED BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS OF 

FACT AND ALLUDING TO MATTERS THAT ARE NOT RELEVANT OR 

SUPPORTED BY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE.” 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IX 

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN USING THE DOCTRINE OF 

TRANSFERRED INTENT.” 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR X 

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING MCCOLLIM GUILTY OF 

ASSAULT[. THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING WAS] AGAINST THE 

MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE IV, 

SECTION 3 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.” 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR XI 

“DEFENDANT MCCOLLIM WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL DUE TO THE 

CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ERRORS THAT HAVE BEEN SET 

FORTH.” 

{¶7} Mr. McCollim has raised eleven assignments of error for our review. We, 

however, do not reach the merits of his arguments for the reasons set forth below. 
4 

 

{¶8} As noted above, the only final, appealable portion of the entry appealed from is 

the denial of Mr. McCollim’s untimely motion for a new trial. As Mr. McCollim has not raised 

any argument with respect to the denial of his motion for a new trial, we affirm the trial court’s 

December 29, 2010 entry to the extent it denied his untimely motion for a new trial. Further, all 

of Mr. McCollim’s assignments of error relate to pretrial issues, trial issues, or issues related to 

Mr. McCollim’s conviction; yet, Mr. McCollim has not appealed from his November 16, 2010 

judgment entry of conviction. Accordingly, we decline to address the merits of his assignments 

of error. 

III. 

{¶9} In light of the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s December 29, 2010 entry to 

the extent it denied Mr. McCollim’s untimely motion for a new trial. Mr. McCollim’s 

assignments of error are not properly before this Court. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Elyria 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(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 
5 

 

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. 

 

 EVE V. BELFANCE 

 FOR THE COURT 

WHITMORE, J. 

DICKINSON, J. 

CONCUR

APPEARANCES:

LAWRENCE H. MCCOLLIM, pro se, Appellant. 

CYNTHIA M. ADAMS, Prosecutor, City of Elyria, for Appellee.