Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No.
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina
N. Alkamhawi, for plaintiff-appellee
Charles Dillingham, defendant-appellant, pro se
1} Defendant-appellant, Charles Dillingham, appeals
from the decision issued of the Butler County Court of Common
Pleas denying his most recent motion for a new trial after he
was found guilty of four counts of felonious assault, each
with a firearm specification, and one count of having weapons
while under disability. For the reasons outlined below, we
2} Dillingham is no stranger to this court having
previously appealed his conviction on multiple occasions.
See State v. Dillingham, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2011-03-043, 2011-Ohio-6348; State v. Dillingham,
12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2012-02-037 and CA2012-02-042,
2012-Ohio-5841; State v. Dillingham, 12th Dist.
Butler Nos. CA2012-02-037 and CA2012-02-042, 2013-Ohio-2050;
and State v. Dillingham, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2014-11-226 (June 8, 2015) (Accelerated Calendar Judgment
Entry). In each of these cases, we overruled Dillingham's
various assignments of error and affirmed Dillingham's
conviction and 14-year prison sentence. This includes a
decision by this court affirming the trial court's
decision denying Dillingham's motion for leave to file a
delayed motion for a new trial due to alleged prosecutorial
3} Despite this court's previous rulings, on
June 5, 2017, Dillingham filed a motion for a new trial
arguing he was entitled to a new trial "due to
misconduct of state's witness and prosecutor, " who
Dillingham claims violated his right to a fair trial. In
support of this motion, Dillingham cited R.C. 2945.79(A) and
(B), which provides that a new trial may be granted resulting
(A) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury,
prosecuting attorney, or the witnesses for the state, or for
any order of the court, or abuse of discretion by which the
defendant was prevented from having a fair trial;
(B) Misconduct of the jury, prosecuting attorney, or the
witnesses for the state * * *
4} According to Dillingham, he was entitled to a new
trial since a state witness, Officer Shawn Fryman, a police
officer with the city of Hamilton, as well as the prosecutor,
engaged in misconduct by committing perjury and/or knowingly
eliciting perjured testimony at trial.
5} On July 10, 2017, the trial court issued a
decision denying Dillingham's motion for a new trial upon
finding the motion was untimely in accordance with both R.C.
2945.80 and Crim.R. 33(B), which required Dillingham to file
his motion no later than 14 days after the trial court
rendered its verdict. It is undisputed that the trial court
rendered its verdict finding Dillingham guilty following a
bench trial on January 13, 2011.
6} Dillingham now appeals from the trial court's
decision denying his motion for a new trial, raising two
assignments of error for review. For ease of discussion,
Dillingham's two assignments of error will be addressed
7} Assignment of Error No. 1:
8} APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AS
A RESULT OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND STATE'S WITNESS
IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S ...