Court Opinion

ID: 9905187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 21:10:29.36182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:34.820347
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Dodson, 2023-Ohio-4296.]

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                  TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio,                                     :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,               :
                                                                  No. 22AP-343
v.                                                 :            (C.P.C. No. 90CR-5725)

Ricardo Dodson,                                    :           (REGULAR CALENDAR)

                 Defendant-Appellant.              :

                                             D E C I S I O N

                                  Rendered on November 28, 2023

                 [Janet Grubb, First Assistant Prosecuting Attorney], and
                 Taylor M. Mick, for appellee.

                 Ricardo Dodson, pro se.

                    ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DELAYED APPEAL

BOGGS, J.
        {¶ 1}    Defendant-appellant, Ricardo Dodson (“Dodson”), has filed pursuant to
App.R. 5(A) a motion for leave to appeal. Dodson seeks leave to appeal the Franklin County
Court of Common Pleas denial of a motion to record and journalize the jury verdicts
rendered on Dodson’s kidnapping counts. Plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, has filed a
response, opposing Dodson’s motion. Because Dodson has not provided a reasonable
explanation for the delay in filing his appeal and this court has already spoken on this
matter, the motion is denied.
        {¶ 2} App.R. 4(A) grants parties an appeal of right within 30 days of a final order.
App.R. 5(A) allows a defendant to file a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal after the
expiration of the 30-day period provided by App.R. 4(A). Such a motion must set forth the
reasons for the defendant’s failure to perfect an appeal as of right. “The defendant has the
burden of ‘demonstrating a reasonable explanation of the basis for failure to perfect a timely
No. 22AP-343                                                                               2

appeal.’ ” State v. Morris, 10th Dist. No. 05AP-1139, 2005-Ohio-6479, ¶ 3, quoting State
v. Cromlish, 10th Dist. No. 94APA06-855 (Sept. 1, 1994). “Lack of effort or imagination,
and ignorance of the law * * * do not automatically establish good cause for failure to seek
timely relief.” State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 91 (1995). The decision to grant or deny
a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal, pursuant to App.R. 5(A), rests within the
appellate court’s sound discretion. State v. Morris, 10th Dist. No. 05AP-1139, 2005-Ohio-
6479.
        {¶ 3} We have previously recounted the history of Dodson’s relevant appeals as
follows:
              On May 23, 2022, Dodson filed notices of appeal of the
              Franklin County Court of Common Pleas April 19, 2022 order
              denying his “Motion Requesting, Pursuant to R.C. §2945.78 to
              Record and Journalize the Kidnaping Jury Verdict’s [sic] that
              found Defendant not guilty of First Degree Kidnapping Counts
              Based on Jury Finding that Defendant Released the Victim in a
              Safe Place Unharmed.” The last date for a timely appeal from
              that order was May 19, 2022. Appellant’s appeals were
              assigned case Nos. 22AP-297 and 22AP-299, and this court
              consolidated the appeals on May 24, 2022. This court
              dismissed the appeals as untimely and denied appellant’s
              motion for reconsideration.

State v. Dodson, 10th Dist. No. 22AP-342, 2023-Ohio-1341, ¶ 4.

        {¶ 4} Dodson filed this motion for leave to file a delayed appeal on June 14, 2022.
He also filed an identical motion for leave to file a delayed appeal on the same day in case
No. 22AP-342, which this court denied in a decision and then denied a motion for
reconsideration. Id. We similarly deny Dodson’s duplicative motion for leave to file a
delayed appeal in this proceeding. As we noted in our decision for his identical motion:
              [Dodson] asserts that his original notice of appeal was in fact
              timely “because the Court received the notice by way of certified
              registered mail and signed the receipt on May 16, 2022.” (Mot.
              at 3.) Citing Kloos v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist.
              No. 87AP-1215, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 1744 (May 3, 1988),
              Dodson argues the seven-day lapse between the date of receipt
              and docketing “should not act as a basis upon which to bar
              appellant’s claims and thereby prejudice him.” (Mot. at 3.)
              However, Kloos found the certified-mail receipt date was
              controlling only when it was apparent that the filing had been
No. 22AP-343                                                                                3

              received days before it was docketed by the court. That is not
              the case here.

              While Dodson points this court to a signed certified registered
              mail receipt dated May 17, 2022, it is not apparent that is the
              correct receipt for his motion for leave to file a delayed appeal.
              Appellant also submits a computer printout of tracking
              information for an item delivered on May 16, 2022, but the
              printout lacks any indication of the sender, recipient, or
              contents of the tracked item. Further, the tracking number for
              the May 16, 2022 delivery does not match the tracking number
              on certified mail receipt attached to Dodson’s motion.

              Dodson offers no other explanation for the failure to file a
              timely appeal, but rests his claim solely on alleged, but not
              apparent, delay by the Clerk’s office. Upon consideration of the
              grounds asserted, we find Dodson has not set forth a sufficient
              reason for the failure to file a timely notice of appeal.
              Accordingly, Dodson’s motion for leave to file a delayed appeal
              is denied.

(Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 5-7.

       {¶ 5} Dodson makes the same arguments in his motion for leave to file a delayed
appeal which is now before us, and they are thus barred by res judicata. “Res judicata
applies to bar raising piecemeal claims in successive motions filed after the defendant is
convicted.” State v. Battin, 10th Dist. No. 18AP-888, 2019-Ohio-2195, ¶ 13. “Thus, the
doctrine serves to preclude a defendant who has had his day in court from seeking a second
on that same issue. In so doing, res judicata promotes the principles of finality and judicial
economy by preventing endless relitigation of an issue on which a defendant has already
received a full and fair opportunity to be heard.” State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-
Ohio-1245, at ¶ 18, citing State ex rel. Willys-Overland Co. v. Clark, 112 Ohio St. 263, 268
(1925).
       {¶ 6} Accordingly, Dodson’s motion for leave to file a delayed appeal is denied.

                                             Motion for leave to file delayed appeal denied.

                     BEATTY BLUNT, P.J. and JAMISON, J., concur.
                                 _________________