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. Teitelbaum

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

August 8, 2019

State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Daniel Teitelbaum, Defendant-Appellant.

          APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas No. 11CR-6440

         On brief:

          Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, for appellee.

          Daniel Teitelbaum, pro se.

          DECISION

          SADLER, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Daniel Teitelbaum, appeals from the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his Civ.R. 60 motion for relief from judgment. For the following reasons, we find appellant's motion to constitute an untimely and successive petition for postconviction relief and affirm the trial court judgment.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶ 2} In April 2014, a jury found appellant guilty of two counts of aggravated murder, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of tampering with evidence. The trial court merged the aggravated murder charges and sentenced appellant to life without the possibility of parole, to be served concurrently with a six-year sentence on the aggravated burglary charge and one-year sentence on the tampering charge and consecutively to two additional three-year terms for firearm specifications. Appellant filed a direct appeal asserting nine assignments of error. This court affirmed the trial court judgment in State v. Teitelbaum, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-310, 2016-Ohio-3524, and subsequently denied appellant's applications for reconsideration and reopening under App.R. 26(A) and (B). The Supreme Court of Ohio declined to accept a jurisdictional appeal of Teitelbaum.

         {¶ 3} On July 16, 2015, appellant filed a postconviction petition, pursuant to R.C. 2953.21, asserting seven claims, including that his constitutional rights were violated by the inclusion of false text messages and phone records and that his defense counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain his phone records to refute the state's theory of the case, failing to obtain a geolocation expert to challenge the state's GPS and cell phone geolocation evidence, failing to call a certain DNA expert, and failing to challenge the state's timeline and time of death. Appellant requested an evidentiary hearing and filed two additional motions for expert assistance and a motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, both opposed and moved to dismiss the motion. On March 21, 2016, the trial court denied appellant's petition and motions for assistance. In early 2017, this court denied appellant's motion for leave to file a delayed appeal of the March 21, 2016 order and ultimately dismissed the appeal.

         {¶ 4} On February 4, 2019, appellant filed the "Motion for Relief from Judgment" under Civ.R. 60(B) at issue in the instant appeal. The motion was based on two grounds. First, appellant claimed that under Civ.R. 60(B)(4), a new United States Supreme Court ruling in Carpenter v. United States, __U.S.__, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018), shows that appellant's expectation of privacy and right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated, entitling him to have his conviction reversed. Second, appellant claimed that under Civ.R. 60(B)(3), fraud, collusion, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice by state prosecutors and defense counsel renders the judgment of conviction void. Appellant noted that if a Civ.R. 60(B) motion is not the appropriate legal instrument, the trial court may recast his motion as a petition for postconviction relief. On February 11, 2019, the trial court found the motion "not well taken and hereby denie[d] the same." (Feb. 11, 2019 Jgmt. at 1.)

         {¶ 5} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

         II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

         {¶ 6} Appellant assigns the following as trial court error:

1. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S MOTION UNDER RULES CIVIL OF PROCEDURE 60(B)(4).
2. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BE SECURE AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES WAS VIOLATED BY THE STATE OF OHIO'S USE OF CELL-SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (CSLI).
3. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S MOTION UNDER RULES CIVIL ...

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.