Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
APPELLANT Donald Bindus, pro se Inmate No. 482059
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor Anthony Thomas Miranda Assistant
BEFORE: Keough, A.J., S. Gallagher, J., and Celebrezze, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J.
Defendant-appellant, Donald Bindus, appeals from the trial
court's decision denying his motion to compel. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's
In 2005, Bindus pleaded guilty to several counts of rape,
gross sexual imposition, and kidnapping; he was ordered to
serve the agreed sentence of 15 years in prison with no
judicial release. Subsequently, Bindus moved the trial court
to withdraw his plea (March, October, and November 2005), set
aside his sentence (2006), grant habeas corpus (2006), order
DNA testing (2007), grant judicial release (2013), and vacate
a void judgment (2013). Each request was denied.
In March 2017, Bindus filed a "motion to compel, "
but failed to request the production of anything. Instead,
Bindus challenged the form of the indictment against him and
the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. The trial
court summarily denied his motion.
Bindus now appeals, raising the following four assignments of
I. The trial court erred when it failed to confirm the
validation of said indictments since the documents returned
to the clerk were actually nineteen individual indictments,
not a single indictment containing nineteen counts, denying
the appellant his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment
rights to the United States Constitution and his rights under
the Supremacy Clause, Article VI.
II. The trial court erred when it failed to establish any
subject matter jurisdiction in this case, violating the
appellant's Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights
to the United States Constitution.
III. The trial court erred when it failed to produce a valid
indictment denying the appellant his Fifth, Sixth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights to the United States Constitution
and his right to due process.
IV. The trial court erred when it failed to produce a
legally formatted indictment that did not contain carbon
copy counts which placed the defendant within a violation
of the Double Jeopardy Clause denying the appellant's
Fifth Amendment rights to the United States Constitution.
Bindus's motion filed with the trial court is actually an
untimely petition for postconviction relief. Pursuant to R.C.
2953.21(A)(2), a petition must be filed within 365 days of
the expiration date for filing a direct appeal. In this case,
Bindus's petition was filed over ten years after that