Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
T. Castele ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Michael C. O'Malley, Edward R. Fadel, Daniel T. Van
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
BEFORE: S. Gallagher, P.J., Blackmon, J., and Celebrezze, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
C. GALLAGHER, P.J.
Ronald Curry was convicted of four counts of aggravated
robbery, four counts of rape or attempted rape, two counts of
kidnapping, and two three-year firearm specifications. The
trial court imposed an aggregate, nine-year term of
imprisonment - the firearm specifications being imposed
consecutive to the other and the underlying concurrent term
on all other sentences. We affirm.
In July 1995, Curry and an accomplice, both wearing masks to
hide their identities, robbed two male and two female victims
at gunpoint in the backyard of the home of one of the
victims. At trial, the victims testified that several were
deprived of their property, but in the original police
report, the investigating police officer only noted that one
of the victims had property stolen during the robbery.
The two female victims were forcibly removed to secluded
areas on the property and were raped. Each assailant marched
one of the female victims to a different area - one was taken
to a bedroom inside the house and the other behind the
garage. The male victims were left lying prostrate in the
backyard, and they fled the scene when the assailants took
the female victims. One victim, taken into the bedroom, was
vaginally penetrated but refused to perform oral sex on the
assailant. That assailant then met up with Curry, who had
just finished raping the other female victim behind the
garage. The second assailant then forced the second victim to
perform oral sex on him.
Curry and his accomplice fled the scene. Police were
immediately called, and both women were taken to the hospital
where evidence was preserved. In 2013, a test was conducted
in the attempt to match the DNA, but only one of the samples
collected was tested - the vaginal swab from the victim who
was sexually assaulted by both Curry and his accomplice
behind the garage. Curry could not be excluded as the
assailant. The oral swab from that same victim was not
retested. Curry testified at trial and claimed that he had
consensual intercourse with the victim at his birthday party
days before the attack. The victim testified to never having
Curry was indicted, and a summons was issued on the last day
of the 20-year statute of limitations. Following a jury
trial, Curry was found guilty of all charges. This timely
In the first assignment of error, Curry claims the state
failed to return the indictment under Crim.R. 6(F) in order
to timely commence the prosecution under R.C. 2901.13(F),
which provides that a prosecution is commenced on the date
the indictment is returned, on the date a lawful arrest
without warrant is made, or on the date that a warrant,
summons, citation, or other process is issued.
An indictment is returned under Crim.R. 6(F) if
(1) the indictment is found upon the concurrence of seven or
more grand jurors; (2) the foreman or deputy foreman signs
the indictment; (3) the indictment is returned to the judge
of the common pleas court who is supervising the grand jury;
and (4) the indictment is filed with the clerk of courts, who
shall endorse thereon the date of filing and enter the case
on the appearance and trial dockets.
State v. Haynes,
2015-Ohio-4582, 46 N.E.3d 1136,
¶ 13 (8th Dist), citing State ex rel Collins v.
O'Farrell,61 Ohio St.3d 142, 145, 573 N.E.2d 113
(1991). Curry argues that the state failed to demonstrate
that the indictment was presented to the judge of the common
pleas court who was supervising the grand jury, and
therefore, the indictment was not "returned" by
July 1, 2015. We need not address this argument because a
summons was timely issued under R.C. 2901.13(F), ...