Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Ohio v. Edmund Brooks

October 14, 2011

STATE OF OHIO
APPELLEE
v.
EDMUND BROOKS
APPELLANT



Trial Court Nos. CR0199505885 CR0199407270

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Pietrykowski, J.

Cite as State v. Brooks,

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

{¶1} Edmund Brooks, appellant, appeals an August 3, 2010 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, denying his April 7, 2010 motion challenging his conviction to multiple counts of rape, sexual penetration, and gross sexual imposition in 1995.*fn1 The convictions were pursuant to jury verdicts in a June 1995 jury trial.

{¶2} The trial court sentenced appellant to serve eight consecutive sentences of life imprisonment, two concurrent sentences of five to twenty-five years, and five consecutive sentences of one year for the offenses. This court affirmed the trial court judgment of conviction and sentence on direct appeal in State v. Brooks (Sept. 20, 1996), 6th Dist. No. L-95-188.

{¶3} This is an Anders case. Counsel for appellant filed an appellate brief, but has also moved for leave to withdraw as counsel under Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738. Counsel advises the court that he is unable to find a meritorious ground for appeal. Counsel provided appellant with copies of both the appellate brief and the motion to withdraw. Afterwards, appellant filed his own pro se appellate brief.

{¶4} Appellant's counsel argues two potential assignments of error on appeal:

{¶5} "Possible Assignment of Errors

{¶6} "1.) The trial court erred by applying the time restraints of ORC §2953.21 to appellant's motion as it was not a motion for post-conviction relief.

{¶7} "2.) The trial court erred by denying appellant's motion for being untimely and barred by res judicata."

{¶8} The trial court denied appellant's April 7, 2010 motion on two grounds--res judicata and the time limitations applicable to post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2). We consider whether appellant's motion is barred by res judicata first.

{¶9} Appellant has filed successive applications for post-conviction relief. They include petitions or motions filed on September 20, 1996, February 8, 1999, June 7, 2007, and April 7, 2010. This appeal is from an August 3, 2010 trial court judgment denying appellant's April 7, 2010 motion for the trial court to set aside the convictions and order a new trial.

{¶10} In the April 7, 2010 motion, appellant claims his indictment was "fatally defective" and that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to convict due to defects in the indictment on 12 of 15 counts. In the motion appellant claims prosecutorial misconduct in preparing and proceeding upon such an indictment. Appellant also argues that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel on two grounds: first that counsel failed to properly challenge the indictment and, second, that trial counsel failed to inform appellant of the availability of an alibi defense based upon the fact that he was a long distance truck driver.

{ΒΆ11} Some of these issues have been raised before. Appellant challenged his convictions based upon claimed deficiencies in the indictment and claimed lack of subject matter jurisdiction to convict on 12 of 15 counts of the indictment in applications for post-conviction relief filed on February 8, 1999, and June 7, 2008. The trial ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.