FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 2014-02-0347
J. TAUWAB, pro se, Appellant.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
D. CELEBREZZE, JR. JUDGE
Defendant-Appellant, Amir Tauwab, appeals from the judgment
of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, denying his
petition for post-conviction relief. This Court affirms.
In February 2014, a grand jury indicted Tauwab on one count
of grand theft auto. Tauwab attended his arraignment and
pleaded not guilty, but later failed to appear at a scheduled
pre-trial. His failure to appear led the court to issue a
capias for his arrest that remained outstanding for eight
months before Tauwab then filed several pro se motions. One
of those motions, filed December 3, 2014, was a motion to
dismiss his indictment due to a speedy trial violation.
Tauwab sought a dismissal of his indictment on the basis of
RC. 2941.401. He averred that he had been incarcerated since
at least April 25, 2014, and, on that date, he had forwarded
the prison warden documents, requesting a final disposition
in this matter. It was Tauwab's position that he had
fulfilled the statutory requirements set forth in R.C.
2941.401, had not been brought to trial within the requisite
time period, and, therefore, was entitled to a dismissal. The
State, however, responded that it had never received written
notice that Tauwab was available for trial. On December 17,
2014, the trial court denied Tauwab's motion on the basis
that neither it, nor the State, had received notice of his
request to be brought to trial.
Following the court's denial of his motion, Tauwab filed
a reply brief in support of his motion as well as a motion
for reconsideration. The trial court denied his motion to
reconsider, but allowed him to make an oral motion to dismiss
on the same grounds at his March 4, 2015 pre-trial. The State
then filed a written brief in opposition to the oral motion
to dismiss. In its brief in opposition, the State argued that
Tauwab was not entitled to a dismissal under R.C. 2941.401
because he had neglected to comply with the statute's
notice provisions. The State attached to its brief affidavits
from Carolyn Young and Julie Loomis, two employees of the
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. On March
16, 2015, the trial court denied Tauwab's motion.
Although the court determined that Tauwab had set forth a
prima facie case that he had complied with R.C.
2941.401's notice provisions, the court found that the
State had rebutted his prima facie showing. As such, the
court set the matter for trial.
After a jury was empaneled, Tauwab decided to retract his not
guilty plea and plead no contest to the charge of grand theft
auto. As a part of his plea, Tauwab agreed to forfeit any
right or interest he might have in the 2013 Hyundai Equus
that was the subject of his charge. The trial court sentenced
him to six months in prison, ordered his interest in the
subject vehicle forfeited, and ordered the vehicle returned.
The court also ordered the Summit County Clerk of Courts to
issue a clear title for the vehicle.
Tauwab appealed from the trial court's denial of his
motion to dismiss, and this Court affirmed the trial
court's judgment. See State v. Tauwab, 9th Dist.
Summit No. 27736, 2015-Ohio-3751. Specifically, we determined
that Tauwab had failed to show that he properly invoked his
speedy trial rights under R.C. 2941.401 by delivering the
necessary statutory notices to the prison's warden.
Id. at ¶ 13-15.
Shortly before this Court issued its decision, Tauwab filed a
petition for post-conviction relief. He also later filed a
motion for summary judgment. The basis for both his petition
and motion for summary judgment was once again that his
speedy trial rights under R.C. 2941.401 had been violated.
The State moved to dismiss Tauwab's petition, and he
filed a brief in opposition to the dismissal. He also filed a
motion to vacate the court's orders about the title to
the vehicle at issue, should he prove successful on his
petition for post-conviction relief. The State filed a brief
in opposition to both Tauwab's motion for summary
judgment and his motion to vacate. Subsequently, the court
denied all of Tauwab's outstanding motions.
Tauwab now appeals from the court's judgment and raises