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. Daniel Monk

November 4, 2011

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
DANIEL MONK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas Court, Case No. 10-CR-526

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

Cite as

State v. Monk,

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:

JUDGMENT:

JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.

OPINION

Affirmed

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Daniel Monk appeals his conviction and sentence entered by the Licking County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

{¶2} Appellant was indicted on two counts of sexual battery and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. On November 8, 2010, Appellant entered an initial plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial court ordered a competency evaluation, and a hearing was scheduled for December 14, 2010. At Appellant's request, the hearing was then continued to January 3, 2011.

{¶3} On January 3, 2011, Appellant moved the trial court to continue the trial set for January 5, 2011. Appellant also filed a motion to suppress on the same date. The trial court denied the motions.

{¶4} On January 4, 2011, Appellant retained new counsel. On January 5, 2011, the date scheduled for trial, Appellant's new trial counsel moved the trial court to continue the jury trial. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant then entered a plea of no contest to the charges.

{¶5} On February 16, 2011, the trial court sentenced Appellant to three years incarceration on each count of sexual battery to run consecutively with a six month term on the one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor charge, for an aggregate prison term of six years.

{¶6} Appellant now appeals, assigning as error:

{¶7} "I. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS AS UNTIMELY.

{¶8} "II. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE APPELLANT'S MOTIONS FOR CONTINUANCE.

{¶9} "III. WHETHER OR NOT PREVIOUS COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY FAILING TO FILE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS.

{¶10} "IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT'S IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE WAS CONTRARY TO LAW DUE TO THE LACK OF THE TRIAL COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF THE OVERRIDING PURPOSES AND FACTORS TO BE CONSDIERED IN FELONY SENTENCING."

I. & III.

{ΒΆ11} Appellant's first and third assignments of error raise common and interrelated issues; therefore we will ...


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.