Court Opinion

ID: 9955966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 20:10:06.186819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:44.510630
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Berk, 2024-Ohio-1218.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio,                                    :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,              :               No. 23AP-518
                                                             (C.P.C. No. 85CR-0067)
v.                                                :
                                                        (ACCELERATED CALENDAR)
Otto Berk, III,                                   :

                 Defendant-Appellant.             :

                                           D E C I S I O N

                                     Rendered on March 29, 2024

                 On brief: G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and Seth L.
                 Gilbert.

                 On brief: Otto Berk, III, pro se.

                  APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

EDELSTEIN, J.
        {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Otto Berk, III, appeals the judgment of the Franklin
County Court of Common Pleas issued on August 7, 2023 denying his motion for relief from
judgment. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
        {¶ 2} Mr. Berk was convicted of aggravated murder in 1985 for the death of his ex-
wife, Vicki Berk. This court affirmed the jury verdict and trial court judgment on appeal.
See State v. Berk, 10th Dist. No. 85AP-720, 1986 Ohio App. LEXIS 5597 (Feb. 11, 1986). In
2019, Mr. Berk filed a motion for leave to file a motion for new trial and a motion for new
trial pursuant to Crim.R. 33(A)(6), citing the discovery of new evidence that bolstered the
self-defense claim he raised at trial. State v. Berk, 10th Dist. No. 21AP-121, 2022-Ohio-
No. 23AP-518                                                                                             2

2297, ¶ 3-8 (“Berk II”). The trial court denied both of these motions in an entry issued on
February 11, 2020. Id. at ¶ 7.
        {¶ 3} Instead of appealing this entry, Mr. Berk filed a motion for relief from
judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and (2) from the trial court’s February 11, 2020 order
nearly a year later, on February 9, 2021. He renewed this motion again on February 11,
2021. Id. at ¶ 9. The trial court recast the motions as petitions for postconviction relief and
denied them in a February 26, 2021 order. Id. at ¶ 10. The trial court denied the petitions
as untimely, but noted, in the alternative, that they would be barred by res judicata if they
were decided under Civ.R. 60(B). Id.
        {¶ 4} Mr. Berk appealed, and we affirmed the trial court’s February 26, 2021 order
in Berk II.      However, because “the motions themselves did not claim a denial of
constitutional rights or seek to render the judgment void,” we reviewed the motions under
the framework they were originally brought, as motions for relief from judgment pursuant
to Civ.R. 60(B). Id. at ¶ 16. We determined the motions were barred by res judicata
“because the issues raised in this appeal could have been raised on direct appeal from the
trial court’s [February 11, 2020] entry denying appellant’s motion for leave and motion for
new trial.” Id. at ¶ 23.
        {¶ 5} On June 9, 2023,1 Mr. Berk moved the trial court for relief from judgment
under Civ.R. 60(B)(3), which the trial court recast again as a petition for postconviction
relief. (Aug. 7, 2023 Decision and Entry.) In its decision, the trial court found the motion
was time-barred and did not meet the jurisdictional criteria set forth in R.C. 2953.21(A) for
untimely postconviction relief. (Id.) The trial court additionally found that the motion
would be barred by res judicata if construed as a motion for relief from judgment under
Civ.R. 60(B). (Id.) It is from this order that Mr. Berk brings his timely appeal.
II. Assignments of Error
        {¶ 6} Mr. Berk assigns the following errors for our review:
                [I.] The first assignment of error is the Trial Court, hereafter
                known as the lower Court erred, when on 8-7-2023, (this date

1 On June 23, 2023, Mr. Berk filed a motion to amend his June 9, 2023 motion by replacing the phrase “a

new trial” with the word “relief” on the eighth page of his motion. Because the trial court uses both the
singular and plural form of motion in its August 7, 2023 decision, we note this in order to avoid confusion
with subsequent motions filed by Mr. Berk that are not before us on appeal.
No. 23AP-518                                                                                3

              will apply to all assignments of error) it denied appellant’s, Civil
              Rule 60 (B) (3) Fraud Motion for Relief from Judgment or
              Order based on the State’s conclusion of what appellant’s
              motion is.

              [II.] The second assignment of error is the lower Court not
              addressing the State and U.S. Constitution violations
              committed by the State in 1985.

              [III.] The third assignment of error is the lower Court not
              holding a hearing as is required by Ohio R.C. 2953.22 when a
              defendant is proactive by requesting one.

              [IV.] The fourth assignment of error is the lower Court’s
              inappropriate development of a pattern of showing bias in
              favor of the State from July 12, 2019 til Aug. 7, 2023 which has
              been demonstrated in the arguments in the three foregoing
              assignment of errors.

III. Discussion
       {¶ 7} As an initial matter, we note the disagreement between Mr. Berk and the state
as to whether the trial court correctly construed Mr. Berk’s motion as a petition for
postconviction relief. In their response to Mr. Berk’s motion for relief from judgment, the
state argued the motion should be recast as a postconviction petition because it seeks to
vacate his conviction due to an alleged constitutional error. (June 28, 2023 Memo Contra
to Mot. for Relief at 1.) The trial court agreed, which Mr. Berk contends was error. We note
that because Mr. Berk is not entitled to relief under either basis, it was not prejudicial for
the trial court to recast the motion.
       {¶ 8} In Berk II, this court declined to construe Mr. Berk’s motion for relief from
judgment as a petition for postconviction relief because the motion sought relief from the
order denying his motion for leave to file a new trial. Berk II at ¶ 16. On the other hand, in
the instant case, Mr. Berk’s June 9, 2023 motion sought relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(3)
because the state, prior to the commencement of trial, “took away [his] only defense,
depriving [him] of a fair trial, a constitutional guarantee, and committed fraud and
misconduct by withholding the three page Night Prosecutor Complaint Form.” (June 9,
2023 Mot. for Relief at 4.) Thus, Mr. Berk’s June 9, 2023 motion sought relief due to alleged
constitutional violations that he claimed resulted in his conviction at trial.
No. 23AP-518                                                                                4

       {¶ 9} To the extent we consider the motion as a petition for postconviction relief,
we affirm the trial court’s judgment. R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a) gives an individual convicted of
a criminal offense the right to petition the sentencing court for relief if the violation of a
constitutional right could have affected the verdict. The time limit to seek such relief is
jurisdictional, and thus the sentencing court may not grant or deny an untimely petition
unless the defendant satisfies two conditions set forth in R.C. 2953.23(A). See State v.
Garnett, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-1007, 2012-Ohio-5471, ¶ 10. In relevant part, a petitioner
must demonstrate (1) he or she was unavoidably prevented from the discovery of facts
needed to present the claim for relief and (2) by a showing of clear and convincing evidence,
no reasonable fact finder would have rendered the guilty verdict but for the constitutional
error at trial. R.C. 2953.23(A)(1). “A petitioner may make the required showing either by
establishing a violation under Brady [v. Maryland], 373 U.S. 83, * * * or by demonstrating
that he was previously unaware of the evidence on which the petition relies and could not
have discovered it by exercising reasonable diligence.” State v. Johnson, __ Ohio St.3d __,
2024-Ohio-134, ¶ 18.
       {¶ 10} If construed as a petition for postconviction relief, Mr. Berk’s filing is
untimely under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a).        Therefore, he must meet both of the R.C.
2953.23(A)(1) requirements for his petition to be considered. See Johnson at ¶ 12. The
evidence central to Mr. Berk’s argument is the “Night Prosecutor Complaint Form,” dated
June 12, 1984. (June 9, 2023 Mot. for Relief, Ex. B.) The report contains Ms. Berk’s account
of Mr. Berk entering her home and assaulting her with an axe handle on June 9, 1984. (Id.)
Mr. Berk argues this report, which he did not receive in discovery at the time of trial, lends
support to his theory of self-defense because it showed Ms. Berk’s “malice” toward him.
(June 9, 2023 Mot. for Relief at 2.)
       {¶ 11} However, Mr. Berk fails to demonstrate how he was unavoidably prevented
from the discovery of facts derived from this evidence, nor how this evidence would have
changed the outcome at trial. As this court noted in Berk II, Mr. Berk was aware of the
June 12, 1984 report filed by Ms. Berk because the prosecutor’s office contacted him to
discuss it on June 19, 1984. In his motion for new trial filed on July 12, 2019, Mr. Berk
conceded “[t]his incident concerning the false complaint [Ms. Berk] filed is not in and of
itself new evidence.” (July 12, 2019 Mot. at 5.) Even if Mr. Berk did not receive a copy of
No. 23AP-518                                                                                                 5

the report itself during discovery, he was aware of the facts contained in the report and, on
appeal, makes no allegations to the contrary. Because Mr. Berk’s June 9, 2023 filing was
not timely and Mr. Berk has not satisfied the conditions required to overcome this bar if his
filing is construed as a petition for postconviction relief, we find the trial court properly
dismissed Mr. Berk’s petition.
        {¶ 12} Nor can Mr. Berk demonstrate error if we consider the June 9, 2023 filing
under Civ.R. 60(B)(3).2 “Civ.R. 60(B) sets forth several grounds upon which a trial court
may grant relief from a final judgment.” State v. Randlett, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1073, 2007-
Ohio-3546, ¶ 10.          Civ.R. 60(B)(3) permits relief for “[f]raud (whether heretofore
denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse
party.” Mr. Berk argues the state committed fraud by withholding the June 12, 1984 report,
which he describes as “crucial exculpatory evidence.” (June 9, 2023 Mot. for Relief at 2.)
“To prevail on a motion brought under Civ. R. 60(B), the movant must demonstrate that:
(1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; (2) the party
is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ. R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3)
the motion is made within a reasonable time, and, where the grounds of relief are Civ. R.
60(B)(1), (2) or (3), not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was
entered or taken.” GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146
(1976), paragraph two of the syllabus. “The moving party must satisfy all three prongs of
the test.” Scruggs at ¶ 22. A trial court has complete discretion in determining whether to
grant or deny a Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Randlett at ¶ 12.
        {¶ 13} Mr. Berk argues the motion seeking relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(3) is timely
because it was filed “within 120 days of the end of the litigation” of the Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and
(2) motion he brought in 2021.               (June 9, 2023 Mot. for Relief at 12.)                 This is a
misunderstanding of the timeliness requirement. Mr. Berk seeks relief “from the judgment
and order of [his] July 18, 1985 aggravated murder conviction.” (Id. at 1.) His June 9, 2023
motion was plainly filed more than one year after the July 18, 1985 judgment was rendered.

2 Although Civ.R. 60(B) motions for relief from judgment are generally filed only in civil cases, we note that,

“on occasion courts, including this court, have considered Civ.R. 60(B) challenges in criminal cases.” State
v. Scruggs, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-621, 2003-Ohio-2019, ¶ 18.
No. 23AP-518                                                                                 6

The timing of Mr. Berk’s previous motion for relief from judgment has no bearing on the
timeliness of his present motion.
      {¶ 14} Furthermore, Mr. Berk does not attempt to argue he has met the elements
required for relief under Civ.R. 60(B). The purportedly undisclosed evidence does not
contain sufficient operative facts to demonstrate that Mr. Berk has a meritorious claim or
defense to present if relief is granted. Mr. Berk argues this report would have supported a
self-defense claim but he does not explain how the document itself establishes Ms. Berk’s
malice.
IV. Disposition
      {¶ 15} Construed as either a petition for postconviction relief or as a motion for relief
from judgment, Mr. Berk is not entitled to relief on the basis of the undisclosed June 12,
1984 report. Having overruled Mr. Berk’s first assignment of error, we deny the remaining
assignments of error as moot, and affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of
Common Pleas.
                                                                         Judgment affirmed.

                        BEATTY BLUNT and BOGGS, JJ., concur.