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 v. Tielen

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Brown

May 15, 2017

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOHN VAN TIELEN, Defendant-Appellant.

         CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BROWN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2010-2037

          Zachary Corbin, Brown County Prosecuting Attorney, Mary McMullen, 510 East State Street, Suite 2, Georgetown, Ohio 45121, for plaintiff-appellee

          John Van Tielen, #A629095, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 5500, Chillicothe, Ohio 45601, for defendant-appellant

          OPINION

          RINGLAND, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, John Van Tielen, appeals a decision of Brown County Court of Common Pleas, denying his motion for return of property. For the reasons detailed below, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings.

         {¶ 2} Van Tielen has previously been before this court several times, arguing issues related to his convictions for pandering sexually-oriented material involving a minor. Van Tielen was arrested after a multi-state investigation was conducted regarding the sharing of child pornography over the internet. A search warrant was executed on Van Tielen's computer, and officials located photographs containing graphic child pornography.

         {¶ 3} On March 17, 2010, Van Tielen pled guilty to four counts of pandering sexually-oriented material involving a minor. The trial court ordered Van Tielen to six years' imprisonment on each of the counts. Each six-year sentence was mandatory because Van Tielen had previously been convicted of rape and attempted rape. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutive to one another, for a total aggregate sentence of 24 years.

         {¶ 4} Van Tielen has since filed several appeals related to his conviction and sentence.[1] This appeal does not relate to Van Tielen's conviction or sentence, but instead involves his June 13, 2016 motion for return of property. At the time, Van Tielen did not have any pending matters on appeal. The trial court denied Van Tielen's motion in a judgment entry, relying on principles of res judicata. Van Tielen now appeals, raising three assignments of error for review.

         {¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1:

         {¶ 6} THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS VIOLATED APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WHEN IT CLAIMED IT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION AND REFUSED TO RETURN APPELLANT'S PROPERTY.

         {¶ 7} Assignment of Error No. 2:

         {¶ 8} THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COMMITTED [sic] BY NOT FOLLOWING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS WHEN THE COURT REFUSED TO RETURN APPELLANT'S PROPERTY WITHOUT FOLLOWING MANDATES OF R.C. 2981 ET SEQ AND 2941.17.

         {¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 3:

         {¶ 10} THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT ATTACHED RES JUDICATA TO ...


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.