Court Opinion

ID: 9882851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:20:57.35085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:39.264567
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Castile, 2023-Ohio-2860.]

                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                    TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio,                                       :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,                 :              No. 23AP-155
                                                                (C.P.C. No. 11CR-3857)
v.                                                   :
                                                           (ACCELERATED CALENDAR)
Isaac J. Castile, III,                               :

                 Defendant-Appellant.                :

                                              D E C I S I O N

                                      Rendered on August 15, 2023

                 On brief: [Janet Grubb, First Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney], and Michael A. Walsh, for appellee.

                 On brief: Isaac J. Castile, III, pro se.

                   APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
        {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Isaac J. Castile, III, pro se, appeals from an entry of the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to dismiss counts in his
indictment. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
        {¶ 2} By indictment filed July 21, 2011, plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, charged
Castile with two counts of securities fraud in violation of R.C. 1707.44(G), first-degree
felonies; two counts of false representation in the sale of securities in violation of R.C.
1707.44(B)(4), first-degree felonies; two counts of sale of unregistered securities in
violation of R.C. 1707.44(C)(1), first-degree felonies; three counts of theft in violation of
R.C. 2913.02, third-degree felonies; one count of securities fraud in violation of R.C.
1707.44(G), a third-degree felony; one count of false representation in the sale of securities
No. 23AP-155                                                                                   2

in violation of R.C. 1707.44(B)(4), a third-degree felony; and one count of sale of
unregistered securities in violation of R.C. 1707.44(C)(1), a third-degree felony. Following
a jury trial, Castile was convicted of all counts except one of the theft counts, and the trial
court sentenced Castile to an aggregate sentence of 13 years and 6 months. The trial court
journalized Castile’s convictions and sentence in a December 6, 2012 judgment entry.
       {¶ 3} Castile filed a direct appeal, represented by counsel, and raised five
assignments of error, including arguments related to plea negotiations prior to trial, the
trial court’s response to jury questions during deliberations, the imposition of consecutive
sentences without making the required findings, merger, evidentiary challenges, and
judicial bias. State v. Castile, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-10, 2014-Ohio-1918 (“Castile I”). This
court affirmed Castile’s convictions, but sustained Castile’s assignment of error related to
consecutive sentences and remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing. Castile
I at ¶ 34-35.
       {¶ 4} Following our decision in Castile I, Castile made a series of filings seeking to
challenge our decision in Castile I. Castile first filed a pro se notice of appeal to the Supreme
Court of Ohio, and the Supreme Court denied jurisdiction on September 24, 2014. Castile
next filed a pro se motion in this court seeking reopening of this court’s decision in Castile
I, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for his counsel’s failure to argue
insufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial
counsel for failing to request funding for an expert witness and for not allowing Castile to
testify in his own defense. This court denied the application for reopening. State v. Castile,
10th Dist. No. 13AP-10 (Oct. 21, 2014) (memorandum decision). Castile then sought
reconsideration or en banc consideration, and this court denied his motion. State v.
Castile, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-10 (Mar. 19, 2015) (memorandum decision). Additionally,
Castile filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio, and the Supreme Court again
declined to accept jurisdiction.
       {¶ 5} In the midst of Castile’s various filings, the trial court resentenced Castile,
pursuant to our decision in Castile I, on December 18, 2014. The trial court again imposed
an aggregate sentence of 13 years and 6 months. Castile then filed an untimely direct appeal
to this court, and this court granted Castile’s motion for leave to file a delayed appeal.
Castile was represented by counsel and set forth four assignments of error, all alleging
No. 23AP-155                                                                                 3

sentencing errors. In a December 11, 2015 decision, this court reversed the trial court’s
resentencing on a classification issue and again remanded the matter to the trial court for
resentencing. State v. Castile, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-103, 2015-Ohio-5121, ¶ 9-11 (“Castile
II”).
        {¶ 6} Pursuant to Castile II, the trial court resentenced Castile on March 16, 2016,
this time sentencing him to an aggregate prison term of 12 years and 9 months. Castile filed
a direct appeal to this court, represented by counsel, and asserted only one assignment of
error related to his sentence. State v. Castile, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-211, 2017-Ohio-1380, ¶ 1
(“Castile III”). In an April 14, 2017 decision, this court affirmed Castile’s sentence. Castile
III at ¶ 10.
        {¶ 7} On January 6, 2022, more than ten years after the state filed the indictment
and more than four years after this court’s decision in Castile III, Castile filed a pro se
motion to dismiss certain counts in his indictment. Castile argued the applicable statute of
limitations operated to bar Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of his indictment and that those counts
must be dismissed. The state opposed the motion to dismiss, noting Castile had not raised
an argument related to the statute of limitations in any of his various legal filings over the
past ten years.   Castile filed a reply on February 23, 2022, conceding he had never raised
a statute of limitations claim before but arguing he should be permitted to pursue the
argument due to his status as a pro se litigant. In a February 8, 2023 entry, the trial court
denied Castile’s motion to dismiss, finding Castile’s motion barred by res judicata. Castile
timely appeals.
II. Assignment of Error
        {¶ 8} Castile assigns the following sole assignment of error for our review:
               The trial court abused its discretion by not dismissing Counts
               one, two, three, five, six and seven of the indictment based on
               a statute of limitations violation which deprived that court of
               jurisdiction.

III. Discussion
        {¶ 9} In his sole assignment of error, Castile argues the trial court erred when it
denied his motion to dismiss Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of his indictment.
No. 23AP-155                                                                                  4

       {¶ 10} Though Castile captioned his motion as a motion to dismiss, he filed the
motion more than ten years after the indictment was filed and more than nine years after
the trial court journalized his conviction. The trial court determined the motion was barred
by res judicata. “[I]n criminal cases res judicata generally bars a defendant from litigating
claims in a proceeding subsequent to the direct appeal ‘if he or she raised or could have
raised the issue at the trial that resulted in that judgment of conviction or on an appeal from
that judgment.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) State v. Anderson, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-897, 2016-
Ohio-1089, ¶ 7, quoting State v. Jackson, 141 Ohio St.3d 171, 2014-Ohio-3707, ¶ 92. The
applicability of res judicata is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Braden,
10th Dist. No. 17AP-321, 2018-Ohio-1807, ¶ 10.
       {¶ 11} Here, Castile concedes he did not raise the issue of the statute of limitations
during his trial or in any of the direct appeals stemming from his conviction, sentencing,
and resentencing hearings. Despite his failure to raise the applicability of the statute of
limitations until his January 6, 2022 motion, filed more than nine years after his conviction,
Castile now asserts that res judicata should not operate to bar the argument because, he
asserts, the expiration of the statute of limitations left the trial court without jurisdiction
and the judgment of his conviction is, therefore, void. Castile is generally correct that there
is an exception to the application of res judicata when the challenge is to a void judgment
as a void judgment may be challenged at any time. See State v. Melhado, 10th Dist. No.
15AP-960, 2016-Ohio-3346, ¶ 6, citing State v. Mitchell, 187 Ohio App.3d 315, 2010-Ohio-
1766, ¶ 22 (6th Dist.), fn. 1, citing State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197,
¶ 30, superseded by statute on other grounds; State v. Skipper, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-494,
2021-Ohio-2206, ¶ 16.      However, “ ‘the expiration of a statute of limitations is not a
jurisdictional defect’ ” and, thus, would not render the trial court’s judgment void. Daniel
v. State, 98 Ohio St.3d 467, 2003-Ohio-1916, ¶ 7, quoting State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v.
Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 76 (1998). Thus, because Castile did not raise the applicability of
the statute of limitations at trial or on direct appeal, res judicata operates to bar him from
raising that argument in his post-conviction motion to dismiss certain counts in his
indictment. See State v. Jenkins, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-105, 2016-Ohio-5533, ¶ 7, 20-22 (res
judicata operated to bar appellant from repeatedly relitigating the validity of his guilty plea,
including his argument that the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations rendered
No. 23AP-155                                                                                  5

his conviction void); Daniel at ¶ 8 (a claim of a violation of the statute of limitations should
have been raised at trial or on direct appeal). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in
denying Castile’s motion to dismiss as barred by res judicata.
       {¶ 12} We overrule Castile’s sole assignment of error.
IV. Disposition
       {¶ 13} Based on the foregoing reasons, the trial court did not err in denying Castile’s
motion to dismiss Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of his indictment as res judicata barred the
motion. Having overruled Castile’s sole assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
                                                                          Judgment affirmed.

                          MENTEL and EDELSTEIN, JJ., concur.