Court Opinion

ID: 9882377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:08:57.180631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:15.803676
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Struckman, 2023-Ohio-3582.]

                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                   FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                             HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,                                     :     APPEAL NO. C-220658
                                                         TRIAL NO. B-1502231
         Plaintiff-Appellee,                       :

   vs.                                             :        O P I N I O N.

BUDDY STRUCKMAN,                                   :

     Defendant-Appellant.                          :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 4, 2023

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith Sauter,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Buddy Struckman, pro se.
                 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

BOCK, Judge.

       {¶1}   Defendant-appellant Buddy Struckman appeals the Hamilton County

Common Pleas Court’s judgment denying his Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a

new-trial motion and his motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

                                             I.

       {¶2}   Following a jury trial, Struckman was convicted in May 2018 of two

counts of unlawful possession of a dangerous ordnance, specifically an automatic

firearm and suppressor, and sentenced to a seven-year prison term. This court

affirmed his convictions on appeal, holding that there was sufficient evidence

presented that Struckman had exercised dominion and control over the area (a safe in

a closet) where the dangerous ordnances were found and that he would have been

aware of their presence. State v. Struckman, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180287, 2020-

Ohio-1232, appeal not accepted, 159 Ohio St.3d 1446, 2020-Ohio-3712, 149 N.E.3d

523 (“Struckman I”). Struckman unsuccessfully challenged his convictions in

postconviction proceedings in 2019 and 2021. See State v. Struckman, 1st Dist.

Hamilton Nos. C-200069 and C-200210, 2021-Ohio-1043 (“Struckman II”)

(affirming denial of postconviction relief where claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel were barred by res judicata); State v. Struckman, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-

210640, 2022-Ohio-2848 (“Struckman III”) (common pleas court lacked jurisdiction

to consider successive postconviction petition where petitioner had not been

unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence upon which his claims were

based).

       {¶3}   In October 2022, Struckman filed a “Motion for Leave to Proceed”

seeking leave under Crim.R. 33(B) to file a motion for a new trial based on newly

discovered evidence. In support, Struckman attached the following to his motion for

leave: (1) this court’s opinion in Struckman I; (2) Lucas v. Hamilton Cty. Mun. Court,

S.D.Ohio No. 1:12-cv-138, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76744 (Jun. 4, 2012); (3) excerpts

                                             2
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

from the transcript of his 2018 felony trial; (4) excerpts from the transcript of his 2017

misdemeanor trial; (5) the affidavit for his arrest; and (6) the exhibit list from his 2018

felony trial.

        {¶4}    Struckman argues that this evidence demonstrates that he was not the

only person who had access to the house at 622 Maple Street where the dangerous

ordnances were found. Specifically, he points to excerpts from his 2017 misdemeanor

trial for drug offenses that stemmed from items found on a table during the search of

the residence at 622 Maple Street. Struckman, in his 2017 trial, was acquitted of those

charges after the trial court had found that “other people may have had access to the

area where the drugs were found.” Struckman believes that he should have been

acquitted of the felony charges for the same reason even though the drugs were found

in the open living room area of the residence and the dangerous ordnances were found

in a safe in what appeared to be a locked closet. Because he was found guilty of

constructively possessing the dangerous ordnances in his 2018 felony trial, Struckman

argues that his constitutional protections against double jeopardy were violated, and

he was denied a fair trial.

        {¶5}    When the state did not file a timely response to his motion for leave,

Struckman moved for “summary of judgment,” asking the common pleas court to

grant his motion for leave. The court summarily denied both motions.

                                               II.

        {¶6}    Bringing forth three assignments of error, Struckman now appeals from

the court’s judgment.     In his first and second assignments of error, Struckman

contends that the common pleas court erred by denying his Crim.R. 33(B) motion for

leave and his motion for summary judgment.

        {¶7}    We review the denial of a Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave under an

abuse-of-discretion standard. State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446, 2022-Ohio-3991,

205 N.E.3d 513, ¶ 29. Crim.R. 33(A) states: “A new trial may be granted on motion of

                                                3
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

the defendant for any of the following causes affecting materially the defendant's

substantial rights: * * * (6) When new evidence material to the defense is discovered

which the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and

produced at the trial.” Generally, a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered

evidence must be filed within 120 days after the jury rendered its verdict or the trial

court issued its decision if the defendant waived the right to a jury trial. Crim.R. 33(B).

Here, the jury verdict in Struckman’s felony trial was rendered on May 3, 2018.

Therefore, he is beyond the 120-day time period for filing a motion for a new trial.

       {¶8}    An untimely motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence

may be filed if the defendant first establishes by clear and convincing evidence that he

was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within the 120-day period.

Id. A party is “unavoidably prevented” from filing a motion for a new trial if “the party

had no knowledge of the existence of the ground supporting the motion for new trial

and could not have learned of the existence of that ground within the time prescribed

for filing the motion for new trial in the exercise of reasonable diligence.” State v.

McKnight, 2021-Ohio-2673, 176 N.E.3d 802, ¶ 11 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Walden,

19 Ohio App.3d 141, 145-146, 483 N.E.2d 859 (10th Dist.1984).

       {¶9}    Struckman argues that the evidence he attached to his motion could not

have been discovered during the 120-day time period in the exercise of reasonable

diligence. We disagree. All of the “evidence” attached to Struckman’s motion for leave,

except for this court’s decision in Struckman I, was available to him before or at his

felony trial or within 120 days from the guilty verdict, regardless of whether Struckman

had taken the time to gather that information. With respect to our opinion in

Struckman I, this is not “new evidence.” Although Struckman was unaware that this

court would affirm his convictions, he was aware of all of the facts noted in the opinion

and that he had been convicted of possessing dangerous ordnances and acquitted of

misdemeanor drug charges. Accordingly, he was aware of the grounds of his motion

                                                4
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

for a new trial within the 120-time period and was not unavoidably prevented from

filing a timely new-trial motion. See State v. Risden, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25234,

2013-Ohio-1823, ¶ 13.

       {¶10} Additionally, the common pleas court did not err in overruling

Struckman’s motion for summary judgment, which was essentially a request that the

court rule on his Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave. Although Struckman argues that the

common pleas court should not have considered the state’s untimely response to his

Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave, regardless of whether the court did, the court properly

denied Struckman’s motion for leave as Struckman failed to demonstrate that he was

unavoidably prevented from timely filing a new-trial motion. Accordingly, the first and

second assignments of error are overruled.

                                              III.

       {¶11} In his third assignment of error, Struckman contends that he should be

granted a new trial because the state violated “U.S. Constitutional Amendments X,

XIV, FAIR TRIAL, DUE PROCESS, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, [and] EQUAL

PROTECTIONS.” We do not address this assignment of error because it goes to the

merits of Struckman’s new-trial motion, which the common pleas court did not

consider. And we are unable to reach the merits of the new-trial motion as well. See

State v. Bethel, 167 Ohio St.3d 362, 2022-Ohio-783, 192 N.E.3d 470, ¶ 41 (holding that

“until a trial court grants leave to file a motion for a new trial, the [untimely filed]

motion for a new trial is not properly before the court.”).

                                              IV.

       {¶12} In conclusion, because Struckman failed to show that he was

unavoidably prevented from discovering the grounds underlying his new-trial motion

within the requisite time frame, we affirm the common pleas court’s judgment.

                                                                   Judgment affirmed.

WINKLER, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., concur.

                                               5
                 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Please note:

       The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                              6