[Cite as State v. Faccio, 2019-Ohio-4942.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

 Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

 : Hon. Earle E. Wise, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

LUIS FACCIO, JR., : Case No. 2019 CA 0017 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

 : 

and : 

 : 

A 1 BONDS, LLC, : 

 : 

 Defendant - Appellant : O P I N I O N 

 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County 

Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 

2017CR0703 

 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: December 2, 2019 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

GARY BISHOP MICHAEL J. KINLIN 

Prosecuting Attorney 124 Middle Ave., Suite 900 

Richland County Elyria, Ohio 44035 

 

By: JOSEPH C. SNYDER 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

38 South Park Street 

Mansfield, Ohio 44902 
Richland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0017 2 

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} Appellant A1 Bonds, LLC appeals from the January 24, 2019 and February 

15, 2019 Judgment Entries of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶2} On November 13, 2017, defendant Luis N. Faccio, Jr. (hereinafter 

“defendant’) was indicted on three counts of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 

2903.11(A)(1), felonies of the second degree, three counts of aggravated assault in 

violation of R.C. 2903.12(A)(1), felonies of the fourth degree, and one count of domestic 

violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(B), a misdemeanor of the first degree. At his 

arraignment on November 21, 2017, defendant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. 

A hearing on his motion for a bond hearing was held before a Magistrate on November 

29, 2017 and December 4, 2017. The Magistrate, in a Decision filed on December 8, 

2017, recommended that defendant’s bond, which had been set in the sum of 

$100,000.00 cash and personal recognizance, be returned1 to the sum of $30,000.00 

cash plus personal recognizance. The trial court, on December 27, 2017, adopted the 

Magistrate’s Decision as the order of the court. 

{¶3} Thereafter, on December 27, 2017, appellant posted bond for defendant in 

the amount of $30,000.00 and defendant was released from jail. After defendant failed 

to appear at his final pretrial on March 21, 2018, his bond was revoked and a warrant was 

issued for his arrest. 

{¶4} On April 6, 2018, appellee State of Ohio filed a motion seeking forfeiture of 

defendant’s bond. The trial court, via a Judgment Entry filed on April 17, 2018, ordered 

 

1 Appellant had posted a $30,000.00 surety bond in the Mansfield Municipal Court. 
Richland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0017 3 

that defendant’s bond was forfeited in court on April 16, 2018 after defendant failed to 

appear for his April 2, 2018 jury trial or “otherwise failed to comply with the conditions of 

defendant’s $30,000 surety and PR.” An oral evidentiary hearing on the bond forfeiture 

was held on June 11, 2018 before a Magistrate. At the hearing, appellant requested 

additional time to locate defendant. 

{¶5} The Magistrate, in a Decision, filed on June 14, 2018, recommended that 

judgment be entered against appellant in the amount of $30,000.00. The Magistrate, in 

his Decision, found, in relevant part, as follows: 

{¶6} 5. Pursuant to R.C. 2937.36(C) surety, A-1 Bonding was notified that 

judgment would be entered against the bonding agency unless it produced the body of 

defendant... at the 6-11-18 hearing. 

{¶7} 6. Surety A-1 Bonding failed to produce Mr. Faccio at that hearing and he 

is still at large.

{¶8} 7. The bonding company requested a 90 day stay/continuance in order to 

locate Mr. Faccio Jr. but admitted it had no new active leads or addresses for him. Two 

to three weeks ago, defendant Faccio escaped from 2 bounty hunters and five to six 

police officers in Solon, Ohio. The bonding company believes he is selling drugs in 

Cleveland from “word on the street.” The bonding company believes that Mr. Faccio’s 

plan is to go to Puerto Rico which is the home of his girlfriend’s mother.

{¶9} 8. The U.S. Marshall’s Task Forced (SIC) for the Northern District of Ohio 

went to an extended stay motel/hotel in March 20187 (SIC) and did not find Mr. Faccio 

there and his room had been cleaned out. The task force has advertised Mr. Faccio as 

a “Most Wanted” three times since March.
Richland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0017 4 

{¶10} On June 22, 2018, appellant filed objections to the Magistrate’s Decision, 

asking for additional time to locate defendant. Appellant did not object to the Magistrate’s 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellant, in its objections, noted that defendant 

had been apprehended on June 17, 2018 and was in the Richland County Jail on June 

21, 2018, “where he currently resides pending Court action.” Appellee filed a 

memorandum in response to the objection, noting that “[a]t the hearing the facts showed 

that [appellant] has no leads for how to locate Defendant.” 

{¶11} Pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed on July 17, 2018, the trial court modified 

and adopted the Magistrate’s June 14, 2018 decision. The trial court stated, in its 

Judgment Entry, in relevant part, as follows: 

The Court finds that justice does not require the total amount of the 

thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) bond remain forfeited. The Court finds 

that the forfeiture of 50% of the bond, or fifteen thousand dollars 

($15,000.00) bears a reasonable relation to the costs and inconvenience 

incurred in gaining custody of Defendant Faccio and again preparing for the 

rescheduled final pretrial hearing and jury trial. 

{¶12} The trial court remitted 50% of the forfeited bond, or $15,000.00, and 

ordered that appellant pay to the Richland County Clerk of Court the 50% forfeited portion 

of the bond, or $15,000.00. 

{¶13} Defendant, on August 14, 2018, pleaded guilty to all of the counts. He was 

sentenced on October 10, 2018. 

{¶14} On October 23, 2018, appellee filed a Motion for Contempt against 

appellant due to appellant’s failure to pay the $15,000.00 as ordered. In response, 
Richland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0017 5 

appellant filed a request for an itemization of all of the costs associated with the 

apprehension and delay of the prosecution of defendant. Appellee filed a memorandum 

in response and appellant filed a response. A contempt hearing was scheduled for 

January 17, 2019. 

{¶15} Appellant, on December 18, 2018, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the 

trial court’s decision to order only $15,000.00 to be remitted to the surety and appellee 

filed a memorandum in response to such motion. The contempt hearing was held on 

January 17, 2019. 

{¶16} As memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed on January 24, 2019, the trial 

court overruled the request for itemization of costs and the motion for reconsideration and 

found appellant to be in indirect civil contempt of the trial court’s July 17, 2018 order. The 

trial court ordered that Michael Jackson and Anthony Horn. Sr., as appellant’s officers, 

each serve twenty-five (25) days in jail and that each pay a fine in the amount of $200.00. 

The trial court gave appellant until February 8, 2019 to purge the contempt by depositing 

$15,000.00 with the Richland County Clerk of Courts. 

{¶17} Pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed on February 15, 2019, the trial court 

overruled appellant’s motion requesting a stay of the judgment.

{¶18} Appellant now appeals, raising the following assignments of error on 

appeal: 

{¶19} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE SURETY IN 

CONTEMPT WHEN THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT PROPERLY CONSIDER ALL OF 

THE FACTORS IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF THE BOND TO REMIT.” 
Richland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0017 6 

{¶20} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN HOLDING THE 

SURETY IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO PAY THE $15,000.00 BOND FORFEITURE 

WHEN THE DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY BEFORE THE BOND FORFEITURE 

WENT INTO EFFECT.” 

{¶21} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO GRANT THE 

SURETY’S REQUEST FOR ITEMIZATION OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE 

APPREHENSION AND DELAY OF THE PROSECUTION OF THE DEFENDANT.” 

{¶22} However, we find that it is unnecessary to address the merits of appellant’s 

arguments because appellant did not appeal from the trial court’s July 17, 2018 Judgment 

Entry and this Court is without jurisdiction to consider appellant’s appeal now. The July 

17, 2018 Judgment Entry was not timely appealed and has become final. The Order that 

is the subject of the present appeal concerns appellant’s compliance with the July 17, 

2018 Order. Appellant may not challenge the substance of the July 17, 2018 Order by 

appealing the subsequent compliance Order. See Lundy v. Lundy, 11th Dist. Trumbull 

No.2012–T–0100, 2013–Ohio–3571, ¶ 34 (“when considering an appeal from a trial 

court's finding of contempt, the appellant cannot raise as a defense challenges to the 

merits of the underlying order from which the appellant did not directly appeal”). See also 

Bruce v. Bruce, 3rd Dist. Logan No. 8–82–3, 1982 WL 6849, *2 (Aug. 11, 1982) (since 

the appellant failed to appeal from the decree in which the order leading to the contempt 

was made, the order “remained a subsisting enforceable order which the trial court had 

no right to review or reverse when the issue of validity was raised merely in defense of 

the contempt motion ”). 
Richland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0017 7 

{¶23} Appellant now challenges the trial court’s order that appellant pay to the 

Richland County Clerk of Court the 50% forfeited portion of the bond, or $15,000.00. 

Appellant had an opportunity to litigate the claims it sets forth in the instant appeal via a 

timely direct appeal from the trial court’s July 17, 2018 Judgment Entry. Appellant, 

however, did not do so and appellant’s arguments are, therefore, barred under the 

doctrine of res judicata. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 180, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967). 

The Perry court explained the doctrine as follows: “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a 

final judgment of conviction bars the convicted defendant from raising and litigating in any 

proceeding, except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due 

process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial which 

resulted in that judgment of conviction or on an appeal from that judgment.” Id.

{¶24} Appellant's arguments could have been raised on direct appeal from the 

trial court's July 17, 2018 Judgment Entry, and res judicata applies even though appellant 

never pursued a direct appeal from such order. Appellant cannot use the trial court’s 

January 24, 2019 Judgment Entry finding appellant in contempt to now attack that trial 

court’s July 17, 2018 Judgment Entry. 

{¶25} Appellant’s assignments of error are, therefore, overruled. 

 
Richland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0017 8 

{¶26} Accordingly, the judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas 

is affirmed. 

By: Baldwin, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Wise, Earle, J. concur.