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. Shockey

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

June 19, 2019

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
CLARENCE SHOCKEY Appellant

          APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR-2018-04-1259

          ALAN M. MEDVICK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          THOMAS A. TEODOSIO JUDGE.

         {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Clarence Shockey, appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

         I.

         {¶2} As a result of Mr. Shockey having a sexual relationship with his daughter, she gave birth to a child in December 2017. Summit County Children Services intervened once the child was born, and the police arrested Mr. Shockey shortly thereafter. A grand jury then indicted him on one count of sexual battery, in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(5).

         {¶3} Mr. Shockey's indictment originally alleged that his offense had occurred at some point between May 1, 2017, and May 31, 2017, when his daughter would have been over the age of eighteen. The State later moved to amend the indictment, however, and the trial court granted its motion. The amended indictment alleged an earlier start date for the offense period, thereby encompassing the time period when Mr. Shockey and his daughter had conceived their child. At that point in time, Mr. Shockey's daughter was only seventeen years old.

         {¶4} A bench trial took place, at the conclusion of which the trial court found Mr. Shockey guilty of sexual battery. The court then sentenced him to five years in prison and classified him as a tier III sex offender/child victim offender.

         {¶5} Mr. Shockey now appeals from his conviction and raises two assignments of error for our review.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE

         THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR IN AMENDING THE INDICTMENT BY MOTION AND WITHOUT PRESENTATION TO THE GRAND JURY[]

         {¶6} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Shockey argues that the trial court committed plain error when it authorized the amendment to his indictment. He argues that the amendment was improper because it subjected him to substantially increased penalties and thereby altered the ...


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.