Court Opinion

ID: 9381809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 20:07:35.001298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:34.591237
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Curtis, 2023-Ohio-953.]

                                         COURT OF APPEALS
                                     MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 STATE OF OHIO                                   JUDGES:
                                                 Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
         Plaintiff-Appellee                      Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                                 Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
 -vs-
                                                 Case No. CT2022-0071
 RODNEY A. CURTIS

          Defendant-Appellant                    OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                       Appeal from the Muskingum County Court
                                                 of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2015-
                                                 0117

 JUDGMENT:                                       Affirmed

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                         March 23, 2023

 APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff-Appellee                          For Defendant-Appellant

 RON WELCH                                       RODNEY A. CURTIS
 Prosecuting Attorney                            Inmate No. A721-152
 Muskingum County, Ohio                          Noble Correctional Institute
                                                 15708 McConnelsville Road
 JOHN CONNOR DEVER                               Caldwell, Ohio 43724
 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
 Muskingum County, Ohio
 27 North Fifth Street
 P.O. Box 189
 Zanesville, Ohio 43702
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0071                                                     2

Hoffman, J.
       {¶1}   Defendant-appellant Rodney A. Curtis appeals the judgment entered by the

Muskingum County Common Pleas Court overruling his motion to inspect the

presentence investigation report (hereinafter “PSI”) filed in his case. Plaintiff-appellee is

the state of Ohio.

                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶2}   On August 20, 2014, Detective Welker of the Muskingum County Sheriff's

Office filed an affidavit to receive a search warrant allowing the Sheriff's Office to seize

Appellant’s cell phone. The affidavit cites to allegations from a minor female resident at

Avondale Youth Center, where Appellant worked as a Child Care worker. The victim

alleged she had sexual contact with Appellant in numerous locations, and she had taken

nude pictures of herself on Appellant’s cell phone. Detective Welker talked to Appellant

about these allegations and asked to see the cell phone. Appellant declined to show

Detective Welker his cell phone, but admitted the victim sometimes took his cell phone

and took pictures of herself with the phone.

       {¶3}   After retrieving the phone, Detective Welker filed for another search warrant

on August 21, 2014, to be able to search the phone's data for evidence of the criminal

allegations. The Sheriff's Office searched the phone on August 22, 2014, but was unable

to download the data because their cable was not compatible with the newer phone. The

Sheriff's Office continued and completed downloading the data on September 8, 2014.

       {¶4}   Appellant was indicted on March 18, 2015, on 63 counts of Illegal Use of

Minor in Nudity Oriented Material or Performance, each a felony of the second degree,

and 11 counts of Sexual Battery, each a felony of the third degree. He retained counsel

to represent him.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0071                                                         3

         {¶5}     Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence. A hearing was held, and

the trial court denied the motion to suppress. Appellant then entered a negotiated plea

of guilty to counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 64, 68, and 74. In exchange for his plea,

the State dismissed the remaining counts. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate

prison sentence of eleven years. Appellant did not file a timely direct appeal, but he

attempted to file a delayed appeal on November 23, 2016. This Court denied Appellant’s

motion to file a delayed appeal by Judgment Entry filed January 3, 2017.

         {¶6}     On November 23, 2016, Appellant also filed a petition for post-conviction

relief in the trial court. On February 13, 2018, the trial court denied the petition. This Court

affirmed.       State v. Curtis, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2018-0014, 2018-Ohio-2822.

Appellant filed a second petition for post-conviction relief on November 8, 2018. The

petition was denied by the trial court, and this Court once again affirmed. State v. Curtis,

5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2019-0001, 2019-Ohio-2587.

         {¶7}     On July 5, 2022, Appellant filed a motion to inspect the PSI filed in his case.

Appellant argued he did not receive a copy prior to sentencing, and was therefore unable

to object to any potential inaccuracies in the report which might have affected his

sentence. The trial court denied the request on July 18, 2022.

         {¶8}     Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal from the July 18, 2022

judgment, and a motion for delayed appeal. The State failed to respond to the motion,

and on October 25, 2022, this Court granted the motion for delayed appeal. It is from the

July 18, 2022 judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning as

error:
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0071                                       4

           I. APPELLANT’S SENTENCES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RUN

     CONCURRENTLY RATHER THAN CONSECUTIVELY.

           II. COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CONSULT

     WITH CURTIS CONCERNING HIS RIGHT AND/OR DESIRE TO FILE A

     NOTICE     OF   DIRECT    APPEAL.     COUNSEL      WAS   FURTHER

     INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF DIRECT APPEAL.

           III. COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INFORM

     APPELLANT OF THE STATE’S OFFER OF A SEVEN-YEAR JOINT

     RECOMMENDATION.

           IV. APPELLANT WAS NEVER PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY

     TO   REVIEW     AND    THEN    CHALLENGE     THE    PRE-SENTENCE

     INVESTIGATION REPORT.

           V.   DISPARITY     IN   SENTENCING     IN    SIMILAR    CASES

     DEMONSTRATES RACIAL AND GENDER BIAS EXHIBITED BY THE

     TRIAL JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR AGAINST APPELLANT AT HIS

     SENTENCING.

           VI. THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF APPELLANT’S CELL

     PHONE      AFTER   THE   INITIAL   WARRANT    EXPIRED,       AND   NO

     EXTENSIONS WERE REQUESTED, GRANTED, OR ISSUED, WAS

     ILLEGAL. THUS, THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY

     DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.

           VII. THE STATE RELIED ON IMPLAUSIBLE OR IMPOSSIBLE

     EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY FORTY-EIGHT (48) COUNTS OF ILLEGAL USE
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0071                                                     5

       OF A MINOR IN NUDITY-ORIENTED MATERIAL OR PERFORMANCE

       (O.R.C. 2907.323).

              VIII. THE STATE WITHHELD FAVORABLE EXCULPATORY

       INFORMATION FROM THE DEFENSE.

                                    I., II., III., V., VI., VII., VIII.

       {¶9}   This Court granted delayed appeal only of the trial court’s entry filed July

18, 2022, which overruled Appellant’s motion to inspect the PSI. Appellant’s first, second,

third, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth assignments of error all address issues pertinent to

the original judgment of conviction and sentencing, and do not claim error in the order

appealed from in this case. We find the issues raised by these assignments of error are

not properly before this Court at this time.

       {¶10} Appellant’s first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth assignments

of error are overruled.

                                                   IV.

       {¶11} In his fourth assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in

denying his request to inspect his PSI.

       {¶12} Appellant’s motion to review the report was filed on July 5, 2022, more than

six years after he was sentenced on November 23, 2015.

       {¶13} R.C. 2953.03 provides in pertinent part:

              (B)(1) If a presentence investigation report is prepared pursuant to

       this section, section 2947.06 of the Revised Code, or Criminal Rule 32.2,
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0071                                                  6

     the court, at a reasonable time before imposing sentence, shall permit the

     defendant or the defendant's counsel to read the report, except that the

     court shall not permit the defendant or the defendant's counsel to read any

     of the following:

            (a) Any recommendation as to sentence;

            (b) Any diagnostic opinions that, if disclosed, the court believes might

     seriously disrupt a program of rehabilitation for the defendant;

            (c) Any sources of information obtained upon a promise of

     confidentiality;

            (d) Any other information that, if disclosed, the court believes might

     result in physical harm or some other type of harm to the defendant or to

     any other person.

            (2) Prior to sentencing, the court shall permit the defendant and the

     defendant's counsel to comment on the presentence investigation report

     and, in its discretion, may permit the defendant and the defendant's counsel

     to introduce testimony or other information that relates to any alleged factual

     inaccuracy contained in the report.

            (C) A court's decision as to the content of a summary under division

     (B)(3) of this section or as to the withholding of information under division

     (B)(1)(a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section shall be considered to be within the

     discretion of the court. No appeal can be taken from either of those

     decisions, and neither of those decisions shall be the basis for a reversal of

     the sentence imposed.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0071                                                    7

              (D)(1) The contents of a presentence investigation report prepared

       pursuant to this section, section 2947.06 of the Revised Code, or Criminal

       Rule 32.2 and the contents of any written or oral summary of a presentence

       investigation report or of a part of a presentence investigation report

       described in division (B)(3) of this section are confidential information and

       are not a public record. The court, an appellate court, authorized probation

       officers, investigators, and court personnel, the defendant, the defendant's

       counsel, the prosecutor who is handling the prosecution of the case against

       the defendant, and authorized personnel of an institution to which the

       defendant is committed may inspect, receive copies of, retain copies of, and

       use a presentence investigation report or a written or oral summary of a

       presentence investigation only for the purposes of or only as authorized by

       Criminal Rule 32.2 or this section, division (F)(1) of section 2953.08, section

       2947.06, or another section of the Revised Code.

       {¶14} Pursuant to R.C. 2951.03(D)(1), there are three instances in which the

contents of a presentence investigation report can be disclosed: (1) pursuant to R.C.

2951.03(B), to the defendant or his counsel prior to the imposition of his sentence; (2)

pursuant to R.C. 2947.06, to the trial court when it is making its sentencing determination;

and (3) pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(F), to the appellate court when it is reviewing the

sentencing determination on appeal. State ex rel. Sharpless v. Gierke, 137 Ohio App.3d

821, 825, 739 N.E.2d 1231, 1233 (11th Dist. 2000). If each of these three instances have

already occurred in a criminal case, the general rule concerning the confidentiality of the
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0071                                                    8

report prohibits the disclosure of the report. Id. A criminal defendant therefore has no

legal right to obtain and review a copy of his presentence investigation report after he has

been sentenced in a criminal action. Id. at 1233-34.

       {¶15} Because Appellant filed his motion to review the report after he had been

sentenced, Appellant had no legal right to review the report, and we find the trial court

did not err in denying his request. The fourth assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶16} The judgment of the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur