Court Opinion

ID: 9957410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 15:10:36.035222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:19.005245
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Thompson, 2024-Ohio-1285.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                   :

                Plaintiff-Appellee,              :
                                                              No. 113510
                v.                               :

JOHN THOMPSON,                                   :

                Defendant-Appellant.             :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 4, 2024

         Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                            Case No. CR-00-396442-ZA

                                           Appearances:

                Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                Attorney, and Anthony T. Miranda, Assistant Prosecuting
                Attorney, for appellee.

                Rufus Sims, for appellant.

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:

               This cause came to be heard on the accelerated calendar pursuant to

App.R. 11.1 and Loc.App.R. 11.1.                 Defendant-appellant, John Thompson

(“Thompson”), appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his case without prejudice.

Thompson raises the following assignment of error for review:
      The trial court erred, abused its discretion, and showed bad faith
      without legal justification or evidence of harm or prejudice to any party
      of this proceeding and denied appellant’s unopposed motion to vacate
      and modify its journal entry dated November 6, 2023 to a dismissal
      with prejudice.

             After careful review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm the

trial court’s judgment.

                        I. Procedural and Factual History

             Thompson’s son, C.W., was seven years old at the time of Thompson’s

2001 trial. C.W. testified at Thompson’s trial that Thompson engaged in sexual

conduct with him on three separate occasions. C.W. testified that Thompson

performed fellatio on his private parts and told C.W. not to tell his mother, M.W.

After the third occasion, C.W. told M.W. about all three incidents. At the time, M.W.

was employed as a county social worker and was under investigation related to

allegations that she was selling drugs out of her home and that C.W. was sexually

acting out with another boy who lived in the neighborhood.

             In February 2001, a jury found Thompson guilty of three counts of rape

in violation of R.C. 2907.02. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and classified

as a sexual predator.

             In 2002, this court affirmed his convictions and sentence. State v.

Thompson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79334, 2002-Ohio-5957 (“Thompson I”).

Subsequently, this court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Thompson’s first petition

for postconviction relief. State v. Thompson 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81573, 2002-

Ohio-6845 (“Thompson II”).
            On April 20, 2020, Thompson filed a motion for leave to file a delayed

motion for a new trial. In this motion, Thompson argued that on October 28, 2019,

C.W. recanted his trial testimony from the 2001 jury trial. Thompson attached an

affidavit to his motion in which C.W. averred that Thompson was innocent.

Specifically, C.W. averred that beginning when he was two or three years old, he was

sexually molested by a male cousin who was five or six years older than C.W. The

abuse was ongoing for several years. When C.W. finally told his aunt, the cousin’s

mother, about the abuse, his aunt got extremely upset. Subsequently, the cousin

approached C.W. and told him to say that someone else had molested him. The

affidavit states, “Being afraid of [my cousin] and the consequences of it all, and

honestly, not wanting what I had going on with my cousin to end, I lied and said my

father John Thompson had molested (raped), me.”

            C.W. further averred that he told his close friends, a professor, M.W.,

his brother, and his sister that Thompson did not rape him. C.W. confided in his

graduate school professor because he considered this person to be a mentor and, at

the time, the professor was also enrolled in law school. Eventually, C.W. spoke to

Thompson’s original trial counsel, who told him that it was his fault for waiting so

long. He also reached out to the Innocence Project, who told him that they could

not help him. C.W. also contacted the Conviction Integrity Unit at the Cuyahoga

County Prosecutor’s Office and spoke with investigators about the case.

            On March 1, 2021, the trial court denied Thompson’s motion for leave

to file a delayed motion for a new trial without a hearing. In State v. Thompson, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110391, 2021-Ohio-4431 (“Thompson III”), this court reversed

the trial court’s judgment, stating:

       Because Thompson submitted evidence that on its face showed he was
       unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence sooner, he was
       entitled to a hearing on his motion for leave.

Id. at ¶ 14.

               On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and heard

extensive testimony from C.W., who was then 29 years old. At the conclusion of the

hearing, the trial court granted Thompson leave to file a motion for a new trial.

                On July 5, 2022, Thompson filed a motion for a new trial, reiterating

his argument that C.W.’s recantation was material, credible, and would change the

outcome of the trial. The state opposed the motion for new trial, asserting that

C.W.’s summary of the timeline of events in his affidavit did not align with the

evidence presented at Thompson’s trial.

               Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Thompson’s

motion for a new trial and stated, in relevant part:

       In relying on all the evidence, including some of the original trial
       transcripts, the court cannot find that it is reasonably well satisfied that
       the trial testimony initially given by the witness was false. The jury, as
       the trier of fact, deserved the benefit of the doubt in weighing the
       credibility of each testifying witness at trial, which included both direct
       and cross-examination. Therefore, the motion for new trial is denied.

               In State v. Thompson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112042, 2023-Ohio-

3358 (“Thompson IV”), this court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded

the case for a new trial. This court stated, in relevant part:
       [we] find this to be the exceptional case in which the recantation of the
       victim-witness warrants reversal because it was unreasonable of the
       trial court to conclude that the recantation was not credible. C.W.
       provided a complete and unambiguous recantation of his trial
       testimony. While the trial court is correct that the jury was in the best
       position to judge the credibility of the witnesses at Thompson’s trial,
       including C.W., this fact does not relieve the trial court of its obligation
       to weigh the credibility of C.W.’s recantation. We find it unreasonable
       for the trial court to have concluded that the testimony of a seven-year-
       old child, facing threats from older family members, was more credible
       than the testimony of a 29-year-old teacher.

Id. at ¶ 39.

               On remand, the parties appeared before the trial court and the state

orally requested that the case be dismissed without prejudice. In an order dated

October 6, 2023, the trial court granted the state’s motion and dismissed the case

without prejudice.

               On November 28, 2023, Thompson filed a motion seeking to modify

the trial court’s judgment to a dismissal with prejudice. Thompson summarized the

basis of his motion as follows:

       The applicant has served 23 years for a crime he never committed, he
       is 54 years old, the state will never retry this case. The applicant has
       been punished enough and justice has been denied and delayed long
       enough. The law and the facts establish enough time has been
       needlessly wasted, based on the foregoing, time is now of the essence,
       justice and mercy are both requesting this court vacate the former
       dismissal without prejudice and dismiss the present matter with
       prejudice.

               On December 4, 2023, the trial court summarily denied Thompson’s

motion.

               Thompson now appeals from the trial court’s judgment.
                              II. Law and Analysis

              In the sole assignment of error, Thompson argues the trial court

committed reversible error by failing to modify its judgment to a dismissal with

prejudice. Thompson contends that the trial court’s judgment resulted in prejudicial

error “because now, instead of making an immediate application for Declaration of

Innocence, especially now as the state has conceded it will never retry the case, he is

compelled to wait a full twelve (12) months for absolutely no legally justifiable

reason.”

              Generally, “[a] trial court’s dismissal of an indictment is reviewed for

an abuse of discretion.” State v. Strong, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100766, 2014-Ohio-

4209, ¶ 7, citing State v. Walton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87347, 2006-Ohio-4771,

¶ 4, and State v. Tankers, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 72398 and 72399, 1998 Ohio

App. LEXIS 1724 (Apr. 23, 1998). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s

decision is “unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” State v. Hill, 171 Ohio

St.3d 524, 2022-Ohio-4544, 218 N.E.3d 891, ¶ 9, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore,

5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

              Crim.R. 48 governs the dismissal of an indictment, information, or

complaint. In general, Crim.R. 48 does not provide a trial court authority or

discretion to dismiss a criminal proceeding with prejudice unless ““‘there is a

deprivation of a defendant’s constitutional or statutory rights, the violation of which

would, in and of itself, bar further prosecution.’”” State v. Troisi, 169 Ohio St.3d

514, 2022-Ohio-3582, 206 N.E.3d 695, ¶ 40, quoting State v. Mills, 11th Dist.
Trumbull Nos. 2020-T-0046 and 2020-T-0047, 2021-Ohio-2722, ¶ 6, quoting State

v. Jones, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22521, 2009-Ohio-1957, ¶ 13, and citing State v.

Sutton, 64 Ohio App.2d 105, 108, 411 N.E.2d 818 (9th Dist.1979).

              Not all violations of constitutional rights require a dismissal with

prejudice, however. Troisi at ¶ 40. Rather, “[t]he demarcation between a dismissal

with and without prejudice rests with the constitutional prohibition against further

prosecution.” State v. Payne, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111693, 2023-Ohio-1294, ¶ 6.

As the Supreme Court of Ohio has stated, “Dismissals with prejudice are more

appropriate for cases involving the deprivation of a defendant’s rights to a speedy

trial or against double jeopardy, which would preclude further proceedings.” Troisi

at ¶ 40, citing State v. Michailides, 2018-Ohio-2399, 114 N.E.3d 382, ¶ 37 (8th

Dist.), and State v. Dunn, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101648, 2015-Ohio-3138, ¶ 22.

              Preliminarily, we note that the transcript of the proceedings on

remand is not part of this record. Thus, the basis of the state’s oral motion to dismiss

without prejudice is not before this court. With that stated, however, it is evident

that the state’s decision to seek a dismissal without prejudice was premised on a

totality of circumstances, including, among other things, this court’s prior decisions

and the scope and nature of C.W.’s recantation testimony. Our discussion in

Thompson IV was limited to the application of Crim.R. 33, and this court did not

identify or otherwise recognize a constitutional or statutory error that would

preclude further prosecution. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the trial
court abused its discretion by granting the state’s request to dismiss the case without

prejudice.

              The sole assignment of error is overruled.

              Judgment affirmed.

      It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR