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. Reese

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum

August 26, 2019

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DARREN M. REESE Defendant-Appellant

          Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2015-0186

         JUDGMENT: Affirmed

          For Plaintiff-Appellee TAYLOR P. BENNINGTON

          For Defendant-Appellant DARREN M. REESE, PRO SE

          JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.

          OPINION4

          WISE, EARLE, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Darren M. Reese, appeals the April 12, 2019 entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio, denying his motion to correct void judgment. Plaintiff-Appellee is state of Ohio.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶ 2} On June 3, 2015, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted appellant on four counts of trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03, one count of illegal manufacture of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.04, and one count of possessing drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11.

         {¶ 3} On August 17, 2015, appellant pled no contest to the charges. By entry filed August 19, 2015, the trial court found appellant guilty, and by entry filed September 24, 2015, the trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of sixteen years in prison.

         {¶ 4} Appellant filed an appeal, arguing he was improperly convicted based on the total weight of the narcotics rather than the weight of the pure amount of cocaine. This court affirmed appellant's convictions. State v. Reese, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2015-0046, 2016-Ohio-1591, aff'd, 150 Ohio St.3d 565, 2017-Ohio-2789, 84 N.E.3d 1002.

         {¶ 5} On November 30, 2018, appellant filed a motion to correct void judgment, challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court because the indictment failed to include specific numerical designations; therefore, he was improperly charged and his sentences should be deemed void. Appellant further argued two of his counts were allied offenses and should have been merged for sentencing. By entry filed April 12, 2019, the trial court denied the motion.

         {¶ 6} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. ...


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.