Court Opinion

ID: 9890630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 18:08:38.230602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:50.586004
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Hampton, 2023-Ohio-3737.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                   MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                      JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO                                 :       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
                                              :       Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                         Plaintiff-Appellee   :       Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                              :
-vs-                                          :
                                              :       Case No. CT2023-0045
RODRIQUEZ HAMPTON                             :
                                              :
                    Defendant-Appellant       :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                          Criminal appeal from the Muskingum
                                                  County Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
                                                  CR2022-0293

JUDGMENT:                                         Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                           October 13, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                            For Defendant-Appellant

RONALD WELCH                                      RODRIQUEZ HAMPTON PRO SE
Prosecuting Attorney                              No. A805-185
BY JOHN CONNOR DEVER                              Noble Correctional Institution
Assistant Prosecutor                              15708 McConnelsville Road
27 North Fifth St., Box 189                       Caldwell, OH 43724-8902
Zanesville, OH 43702
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0045                                                       2

Gwin, P.J.

       {¶1}   Appellant Rodriquez Hampton appeals the June 8, 2023 judgment entry of

the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas granting appellee’s motion to lift stay.

Appellee is the State of Ohio.

                                     Facts & Procedural History

       {¶2}   On October 14, 2022, appellant pled guilty to one count of trafficking in

drugs (cocaine), as amended, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), with a forfeiture

specification, and one count of trafficking in drugs (fentanyl-related compound) in the

vicinity of a school, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), with major drug offender, firearm,

and forfeiture specifications. The trial court imposed the jointly recommended aggregate

minimum sentence of twenty (20) years with a maximum indefinite sentence of twenty-

five- and one-half years. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutive

to the term appellant was serving in Muskingum County Common Pleas Case Number

CR2022-0057. Further, the trial court ordered the forfeiture of all of appellant’s property

detailed in the indictment.      The trial court memorialized appellant’s convictions and

sentence in a judgment entry dated October 31, 2022.

       {¶3}   On November 10, 2022, appellant filed a direct appeal of his convictions

and sentence. In his direct appeal, he argued: the indeterminate sentences imposed

pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Act were unconstitutional; his consecutive sentences were

contrary to law; and the trial court’s order of forfeiture constituted an excessive fine in

violation of the Excessive Fines Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions.

       {¶4}   On December 6, 2022, appellant filed a “motion to stay judgment,” asking

the trial court to “stay execution of the judgment of forfeiture until resolution of his timely
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0045                                                    3

direct appeal” because “whether [the] forfeiture violated the Eighth Amendment is an

issue defendant plans to present on appeal.” The trial court granted the motion to stay

on January 5, 2023.

       {¶5}   This Court overruled appellant’s three assignments of error in his direct

appeal, and affirmed his conviction and sentence. We issued a judgment entry and

opinion on June 5, 2023. State v. Hampton, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2022-0081,

2023-Ohio-1868.

       {¶6}   On June 7, 2023, appellee filed a motion to lift the stay of judgment based

upon our affirmance of appellant’s conviction and sentence, including the forfeiture of the

real and personal property. The trial court granted the motion to lift the stay of judgment

on June 8, 2023. Appellant filed a “reply to motion to lift stay” on June 16, 2023, in which

he argued that since the appeals process was still pending, the entry lifting the stay was

improper.

       {¶7}   Appellant appeals the June 8, 2023 judgment entry of the Muskingum

County Court of Common Pleas, and assigns the following as error:

       {¶8}   “I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN, REVERSIBLE ERROR BY

COLLIDNG WITH DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION WHEN IT ENTERED

FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE STATE’S MOTION TO LIFT STAY WITHOUT

OPPORTUNITY        TO    REPLY     PURSUANT          TO   THE   RULES     OF    CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE.”

                                                I.

       {¶9}   Appellant contends the trial court committed reversible error in granting the

motion to lift stay without allowing him a chance to respond to the motion. Appellant cites
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0045                                                    4

Criminal Rule 47 in support of his motion. However, when appellee filed the motion to lift

the stay, this Court had already affirmed the trial court’s judgment that was stayed. The

issues appellant presented in his motion to stay with regards to the forfeiture had been

thoroughly litigated in his direct appeal.

       {¶10} Additionally, we find any failure by the trial court to allow appellant time to

file a response to be harmless. “Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not

affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Criminal Rule 52(A). In the reply that

appellant filed on June 16, 2023, he argued the lifting of the stay was premature because

his motion for reconsideration was pending, and the Ohio Supreme Court “had not yet

ruled.” This Court denied appellant’s motion for reconsideration of his direct appeal on

July 24, 2023. Further, appellant did not file a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme

Court regarding this Court’s June 5, 2023 opinion or July 24, 2023 judgment entry.

Accordingly, the issue of forfeiture has been fully litigated and finally decided.

       {¶11} Based on the foregoing, appellant’s assignment of error is overruled.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0045                                    5

      {¶12} The June 8, 2023 judgment entry of the Muskingum County Court of

Common Pleas is affirmed.

By Gwin, P.J.,

Hoffman, J., and

Wise, J., concur