Court Opinion

ID: 9966272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 16:07:10.204627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:39.353105
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Barnes, 2024-Ohio-1737.]

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                UNION COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                          CASE NO. 14-23-33
         PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

    v.

ALEX M. BARNES,                                           OPINION

         DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                  Appeal from Union County Common Pleas Court
                           Trial Court No. 2007-CR-0198

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                               Date of Decision: May 6, 2024

APPEARANCES:

         Alison Boggs for Appellant

         Andrew Bigler for Appellee
Case No. 14-23-33

WALDICK, J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Alex M. Barnes (“Barnes”), appeals the August

24, 2023 judgment of conviction and sentence entered against him in the Union

County Court of Common Pleas. Barnes argues that the indictment against him

should have been dismissed on speedy trial grounds and that his conviction must be

set aside on the same basis. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

                                 Procedural Background

       {¶2} On December 3, 2007, the Union County grand jury returned a 5-count

indictment against Barnes, charging him as follows: Count 1 – Rape, a first-degree

felony in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b); Count 2 – Gross Sexual Imposition, a

third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4); Count 3 – Gross Sexual

Imposition, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4); Count 4 –

Disseminating Matter Harmful to Juveniles, a fourth-degree felony in violation of

R.C. 2907.31(A)(1); and Count 5 – Rape, a first-degree felony in violation of R.C.

2907.02(A)(1)(b). Counts 1 and 5 of the indictment also contained sexually violent

predator specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.148.

       {¶3} On December 3, 2007, the state also filed a request that a warrant be

issued on the indictment. That request listed Barnes’ address as the Wilcox State

Prison in Abbeville, Georgia. While an arraignment was scheduled to be held on

December 13, 2007, Barnes was not served and no further docketed action was taken

in the case for several years.

                                          -2-
Case No. 14-23-33

       {¶4} On May 20, 2013, Barnes filed a pro se “motion to indict or dismiss”,

alleging that he had been in custody in another state and had heard nothing from the

prosecution in Ohio, and arguing that he was “entitled to be indicted or dismissed

and closed out with the GCIC, within (30) days of the Motion filing.” (Docket No.

4).

       {¶5} On July 18, 2013, the State of Ohio filed a response in opposition to

Barnes’ motion. The state argued that Barnes had been incarcerated in the state of

Georgia since his indictment in 2007 and was therefore “unavailable” pursuant to

R.C. 2945.72. (Docket No. 5).

       {¶6} On July 25, 2013, the trial court filed a judgment entry overruling

Barnes’ motion. The trial court found that, pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(A), the time

within which a defendant must be brought to trial may be extended due to his

confinement in another state.

       {¶7} Subsequently, in late 2013, 2014, and 2015, Barnes filed several

additional pro se documents, including a discovery request, an address update, a

motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, a motion for

a default judgment, a motion to plea in absentia, a demand for speedy trial, and a

motion for the appointment of counsel.

       {¶8} On October 15, 2015, the trial court filed a judgment entry overruling

Barnes’ various motions and, as to the speedy trial issue, specifically found that

                                         -3-
Case No. 14-23-33

Barnes continued to be incarcerated in the state of Georgia and therefore remained

unavailable for prosecution in Ohio.

       {¶9} On December 13, 2021, Barnes filed a notice of place of imprisonment

and a request for final disposition of his indictment pursuant to the Interstate

Agreement on Detainers.

       {¶10} On December 28, 2021, the trial court appointed counsel to represent

Barnes.

       {¶11} On January 6, 2023, an arraignment was held and Barnes pled not

guilty to the indictment.

       {¶12} On April 28, 2023, the case was resolved with a negotiated plea of

guilty. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Barnes pled guilty to Count 1 amended to a

charge of Gross Sexual Imposition, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C.

2907.05(A)(4), to Counts 2, 3, and 4 as indicted, and to Count 5 amended to a charge

of Gross Sexual Imposition, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C.

2907.05(A)(4).

       {¶13} On August 24, 2023, a sentencing hearing was held. Barnes was

sentenced to 36 months in prison on Count 1, 36 months in prison on Count 2, 36

months in prison on Count 3, 18 months in prison on Count 4, and 36 months in

prison on Count 5. All sentences were ordered to be served consecutively, for an

aggregate prison sentence of 162 months.

                                        -4-
Case No. 14-23-33

       {¶14} On September 22, 2023, Barnes filed the instant appeal, in which he

raises one assignment of error for our review.

                               Assignment of Error

       Appellant’s convictions are void due to speedy trial violations
       because the state did not bring him to trial or otherwise resolve
       the case within 180 days while the trial court erred in not granting
       appellant’s motion to dismiss.

       {¶15} In the sole assignment of error, Barnes contends that the trial court

erred in overruling his motion to dismiss and argues that his convictions must be

reversed due to speedy trial violations. In support of those claims, Barnes relies

both on Ohio’s general speedy trial statute, R.C. 2945.71, and also on the Interstate

Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”), which in Ohio is codified in R.C. 2963.30.

       {¶16} However, we do not reach the merits of the speedy trial claims raised

in this case because Barnes waived his right to contest his convictions on statutory

speedy trial grounds when he entered pleas of guilty.

       {¶17} As to Barnes’ arguments raised pursuant to R.C. 2945.71, in

Montpelier v. Greeno, 25 Ohio St.3d 170, 495 N.E.2d 581 (1986), the Supreme

Court of Ohio held that a defendant’s guilty plea waives the right to raise the

statutory right to speedy trial on appeal. See also State v. Kelley, 57 Ohio St.3d 127,

566 N.E.2d 658 (1991), paragraph one of the syllabus.

       {¶18} As to Barnes’ arguments raised pursuant to R.C. 2963.30, in State v.

Bowman, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-89-18, 1990 WL 209806 (Dec. 21, 1990), this

                                         -5-
Case No. 14-23-33

Court similarly held that a plea of guilty waives the right to raise a speedy trial claim

pursuant to the IAD on appeal. “Because the plea of guilty is a complete admission

of a defendant’s guilt, it waives all non-jurisdictional defects assuming the

regularity and constitutionality of the plea itself, and the procedure by which it was

accepted by the court.” Id., at *5, citing State v. Brown, 43 Ohio App.3d 39, 40, 539

N.E.2d 1159 (1st Dist.1988). In Bowman, we noted that the Sixth Circuit Court of

Appeals had previously determined that the rights created by the IAD are non-

jurisdictional. Id., citing Howalak v. United States, 645 F.2d 534, 537 (6th

Cir.1981). “To permit the raising of IAD questions after a plea of guilty, entry of

judgment and the sentencing, would undercut the policy of achieving prompt and

final judgments.” Id. See also State v. Lewis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102939, 2015-

Ohio-5267, ¶ 17.

       {¶19} In the instant case, as Barnes’ guilty pleas waived the issues he raises

on appeal, the assignment of error is overruled.

                                      Conclusion

       {¶20} Having found no error prejudicial to the defendant-appellant, Alex

Barnes, in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Union County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

                                                                  Judgment Affirmed

ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.

                                          -6-