Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton
Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
TRIAL NO. B-1304393
T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M.
Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for
Littlepage, pro se.
Defendant-appellant Daniel Littlepage appeals the Hamilton
County Common Pleas Court's judgments overruling his
"Motion to Correct Sentence" and "Motion for
Grand Jury Testimony and Evidence [and] Disclosure of
Proceedings." We dismiss the appeals for lack of
Littlepage was convicted of aggravated murder in January
2014. He unsuccessfully challenged his conviction on direct
appeal and in postconviction filings between 2014 and 2017.
See State v. Littlepage, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.
C-140760 (Dec. 4, 2015); State v. Littlepage, 1st
Dist. Hamilton No. C-140574 (Aug. 26, 2015), appeals not
accepted, 144 Ohio St.3d 1429, 2015-Ohio-5225, 42 N.E.3d
764, and 145 Ohio St.3d 1461, 2016-Ohio-2807, 49 N.E.3d 322;
State v. Littlepage, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.
to Correct Sentence
In the case numbered C-170157, Littlepage presents a single
assignment of error challenging the common pleas court's
judgment overruling his February 2017 "Motion to Correct
Sentence." In that motion, he sought correction of his
sentence on the ground that it was void because the trial
court had failed to make statutorily mandated findings. We do
not reach the merits of the assignment of error, because we
have no jurisdiction to review the judgment overruling the
No common pleas court jurisdiction. Littlepage did
not specify in his motion a statute or rule under which the
relief sought may be afforded. The common pleas court was
thus left to "recast" the motion "into
whatever category necessary to identify and establish the
criteria by which the motion should be judged."
State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153, 2008-Ohio-545,
882 N.E.2d 431, ¶ 12 and syllabus.
But the motion was not reviewable under the standards
provided by R.C. 2953.21 et seq., governing the proceedings
upon a petition for postconviction relief, because the motion
alleged statutory, rather than constitutional, violations.
See R.C. 2953.21(A)(1) (requiring a postconviction
petitioner to demonstrate a constitutional violation in the
proceedings resulting in his conviction); State v.
Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-6320, 941 N.E.2d 768,
¶ 26 (holding that sentencing findings are not
constitutionally mandated). The motion was also not
reviewable as a motion for a new trial under Crim.R. 33 or as
a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1,
because Littlepage was not convicted following a trial, but
upon a plea of guilty, and his motion did not seek withdrawal
of that plea. The motion was not reviewable under R.C.
Chapter 2731 as a petition for a writ of mandamus, under R.C.
Chapter 2721 as a declaratory judgment action, or under R.C.
Chapter 2725 as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
because the motion did not satisfy those statutes'
procedural requirements. See R.C. 2731.04,
2721.12(A), and 2725.04. And Crim.R. 57(B) did not require
the common pleas court to entertain the motion under Civ.R
60(B), because Littlepage's sentence had been reviewable
under the procedures provided for a direct appeal. See
State v. Smith, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-150445 and
C-150446, 2016-Ohio-3521, ¶ 19.
We, therefore, conclude that the common pleas court had no
jurisdiction to entertain Littlepage's "Motion to
No appeals court jurisdiction. Moreover, this court
has no jurisdiction to review the common pleas court's
judgment overruling the motion. Article IV, Section 3(B)(2),
Ohio Constitution, confers upon an intermediate appellate
court only "such jurisdiction as may be provided by law
to review and affirm, modify, or reverse judgments or final
orders of the courts of record inferior to the court of
appeals within the district."
The common pleas court's judgment overruling
Littlepage's motion to correct his sentence is not a
judgment of conviction. Therefore, the judgment overruling
the motion is plainly not reviewable under the jurisdiction
conferred upon an appeals court by R.C. 2953.02 or 2953.08 to
review a judgment of conviction entered in a criminal case.
An appeals court has jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23(B) to
review an order awarding or denying postconviction relief.
But the entry overruling Littlepage's motion was not
appealable under R.C. 2953.23(B), because, as we determined,
the motion ...