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. Rock

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Lake

August 21, 2017

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DAVID V. ROCK, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

         Criminal Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. Case No. 14 CR 000525. Judgment: Affirmed.

          Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Karen A. Sheppert, Assistant Prosecutor (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

          David V. Rock, Jr., pro se (Defendant-Appellant).

          OPINION

          TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.

         {¶1} Appellant, David V. Rock, Jr. appeals from the December 28, 2016 judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, denying his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. For the following reasons, the trial court's decision is affirmed.

         {¶2} On March 30, 2015, the Lake County Court of Common Pleas entered a judgment convicting appellant of one count of operating a vehicle under the influence ("OVI"), a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), and an accompanying R.C. 2941.1413 specification for having been convicted of five or more OVI offenses within the previous twenty years. Appellant was sentenced to serve thirty-six months in prison for the underlying OVI and four years for the repeat-offender specification, to run consecutive to each other and consecutive to the sentence imposed by the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas in case No. 10-CRI-081.

         {¶3} Appellant challenged his sentence on appeal from the trial court's March 30, 2015 judgment. State v. Rock, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2015-L-047, 2015-Ohio-4639. We held the trial court failed to make the required findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) in order to run appellant's sentences for the OVI and specification consecutive to his Ashland County sentence. Id. at ¶11.

         {¶4} Upon remand from this court, the trial court held a hearing on December 7, 2015. The trial court entered judgment on December 8, 2015, and declined to make the required findings for imposing consecutive sentences. The trial court ordered appellant's sentence for the OVI and specification be served concurrently with the sentence imposed by the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas. State v. Rock, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2016-L-011, 2016-Ohio-8516, ¶4.

         {¶5} Appellant filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal from the trial court's December 8, 2015 judgment, which this court granted. Id. at ¶5. We affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id. at ¶22.

         {¶6} On June 10, 2016, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to R.C. 2953.21, requesting that his March 2015 conviction be vacated. Appellee, the state of Ohio, filed a response on July 13, 2016. On July 26, 2016, the trial court denied appellant's petition, finding it was untimely filed and that appellant failed to assert an exception to the timeliness requirement that would justify delayed relief. Appellant did not appeal that judgment.

         {¶7} On December 7, 2016, appellant filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. Appellant moved the trial court to vacate its July 26, 2016 judgment, pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and (5), asserting the trial court should have applied the "three-day mail box rule" to appellant's petition for postconviction relief. Appellant maintained utilizing the three-day mailbox rule would have rendered his petition timely. He indicated, when he filed the petition, that he was incarcerated and, in prison, the "mail was placed to a halt after 7:00 a.m., Friday June 3rd, 2016, and does not resume until Monday June 6th." Appellee filed a response on December 16, 2016. The trial court denied the motion on December 28, 2016.

         {¶8} On January 17, 2017, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court's December 28, 2016 judgment. Appellant asserts a sole assignment of error, which states:

         {¶9} "The trial court committed prejudicial error by not granting relief from judgment and applying Civ.R. 6(E), which would have allowed R.C. 2953.21 postconviction relief petition to be timely. [sic] This is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

         {¶10} In response, appellee argues appellant is using his Civ.R. 60(B) motion in place of a timely filed appeal from the trial court's judgment denying his petition for postconviction relief. Appellee further argues appellant has failed 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.