Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking
from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
Plaintiff-Appellee WILLIAM C. HAYES Licking County Prosecutor
By: PAULA M. SAWYERS Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Defendant-Appellant DAVID E. DUNKLE, pro se #R138316
JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
David E. Dunkle appeals the Licking County Common Pleas
Court's denial of his Motion to Vacate Void Sentence as
Contrary to Law. Appellee is the State of Ohio.
OF FACTS AND THE CASE
A review of the details of the case concluding with charges
against Appellant is unnecessary for the disposition of this
appeal and is therefore omitted.
In 1986, Appellant was convicted of multiple counts of rape
and sentenced to consecutive life sentences by the Licking
County Court of Common Pleas.
In 2005, Appellant filed a pro se motion to file a delayed
appeal. He argued the trial court and counsel failed to
advise him of his right to appeal, pursuant to Criminal Rule
32. We denied the motion. State v. Dunkle, 5th Dist. Licking
In October of 2010, Appellant sought leave for a delayed
appeal on the same grounds, which we also denied. State
v. Dunkle, 5th Dist. Licking No. 10-CA-110. Also in
2010, Appellant filed a pro se "Motion to Suspend"
his sentence with the trial court, which the trial court
construed as a motion for judicial release and overruled.
Appellant sought reconsideration of that decision, which was
denied. We dismissed Appellant's appeal therefrom in
State v. Dunkle, 5th Dist. Licking No. 11-CA-42,
2011-Ohio-6779. We found the trial court's decision was
not a final appealable order and no authority exists for a
motion to reconsider a judgment of the trial court in a
criminal case. Id.
On May 17, 2012, Appellant filed a pro se "Complaint for
Contempt of Court Order" with the trial court. In his
motion, he argued the Parole Board breached his original plea
agreement. The trial court denied the motion. We found the
trial court did not err in overruling his complaint.
State v. Dunkle, 5th Dist. Licking No. 13-CA-2,
On September 4, 2012, Appellant filed a Motion to Correct
Sentence with the trial court and argued that, during his
1986 sentencing, the trial court failed to comply with
Criminal Rule 32. Appellant requested the trial court
resentence him so that he could appeal his original sentence.
The trial court considered Appellant's motion to be a
petition for post-conviction relief and denied the petition
as untimely. We affirmed the trial court's judgment in
State v. Dunkle, 5th Dist. Licking No. 12-CA-80,
On July 11, 2013, Appellant filed a complaint with the Court
of Claims of Ohio alleging that the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction breached a plea agreement he
entered into with the State of Ohio. The Court of Claims
granted ODRC's motion to dismiss Appellant's
complaint. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court's decision in ...