Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 06-23-2021
Case Style:
STATE OF OHIO - v - JOHN L. TURNER, JR.,
Case Number: 2020-L-088
Judge: CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY
Plaintiff's Attorney: Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
- Criminal defense attorney represented John L. Turner, Jr. with 13 counts of Breaking and Entering; eight counts Theft; and one count of Intimidation charges.
In 2014, appellant was indicted on 13 counts of Breaking and Entering,
felonies of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2911.13(B); eight counts Theft, felonies of 2
Case No. 2020-L-088
the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1); and one count of Intimidation, a felony
of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2921.03. These charges arose from appellant
breaking in to several parked vehicles and stealing their contents. Appellant pleaded not
guilty, and the case went to trial where appellant proceeded pro se.
{¶3} At the state’s request, the trial court dismissed 14 counts, leaving seven
counts of Theft and one count of Intimidation. The jury found him guilty of all eight counts.
Appellant filed a direct appeal; this court affirmed the conviction in State v. Turner, 11th
Dist. Lake No. 2015-L-116, 2016-Ohio-4733 (“Turner I ”).
{¶4} Appellant has filed many subsequent motions. He now appeals the denial
of his motion to vacate or suspend payment or fines and/or costs and his motion to stay
the imposition of restitution, fines, and/or costs.
{¶5} Appellant assigns 14 errors for our review:
{¶6} [1.] The prosecution of Lake County violated defendant’s due
process of law and his equal protection of the laws, by nolle prosequi
a theft charge to deprive defendant his right to confront that witness
about the crime against him. See (exhibit A).
{¶7} [2.] The prosecution of Lake County violated defendant’s Brady
material of not turning over the 911 call from the City of Eastlake
Ohio on the indictment charges, which is a witness of the crime. And
the photo’s of all the broken into vehicle of the night or day of the
crime in the parking lot of Elpalenque restaurant, discovery violation.
{¶8} [3.] The prosecutorial misconstruction of the break and entering
charges, statute R.C. 2911.13(B), to force excessive bail and fines
which was cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
{¶9} [4.] Double jeopardy, or once in jeopardy for the same offense.
{¶10} [5.] There was no international maritime valid contract. And no court
has jurisdiction in admiralty jurisdiction until there is an contract that
has been breach.
{¶11} [6.] A defect in the trial mechanism or framework that by deprivation
of basic Constitutional protection of the right to counsel, this 3
Case No. 2020-L-088
constitutional protection Crim.R. 44(C), requires automatic reversal
because [defendant] was tried unfairly and defendant[’s] relief to
vacate the conviction or sentence.
{¶12} [7.] Plain error; was that the trial judge did not get a written signed
waiver of counsel, as the procedural rule 44(C) requires. An error
that is so obvious and prejudicial that an appellate court should
address it despite the defendant failure to raise a proper objection at
trial. A plain error is often said to be so obvious and substantial that
failure to correct it would infringe a party’s due-process rights and
damages the integrity of the judicial process see Fed. R. Evid.
103(d).
{¶13} (D) Plain error.
{¶14} Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting
substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of
the court.
{¶15} There is NO written signed waiver of counsel, and automatic reversal
is warranted pursuant to using another appeal de novo review will
clearly be or show racism, based on defendant is a African American
Black male citizen of the U.S.
{¶16} [8.] The trial just deprived defendant his right to confront the witness
by allowing the prosecution to dismiss charges that the grand jury
return a true bill for because it was not a felony charge and by doing
that defendant was not able to confront the witness or all the
witnesses because the prosecution knew that the truth of who’s
vehicle was really right behind the back door of dang this computer
store, and the witness Dillion Hardy did not see defendant break into
Mr. Brian J. Brusky vehicle, or any other vehicle.
{¶17} [9.] Prosecutorial misconduct arranging the City of Eastlake charges
around the City of Mentor charges pursuant to the lack of the
elements of the crime for the City of Mentor charges, to induce action
or change the decisions of the jury because the prosecution had no
elements of the crime to prove defendant did any of the crimes.
{¶18} [10.] The prosecution did not prove any elements of the City of
Mentor crime to sustain a conviction.
{¶19} [11.] The trial judge refused to give defendant another lawyer, after
the defendant moved the court to get another counsel for his
defense. See page 70 of 101, line 13, 14, and 15 of the transcript of
proceedings, February 4, 2015. 4
Case No. 2020-L-088
{¶20} [12.] The prosecution and trial judge in this case, bias or prejudice
pursuant to racism of defendant is a African American man and if this
failure to review this plain error on this appeal for the second time
would be damaging to the integrity of the judicial process.
{¶21} [13.] The trial judge refused to modify the bond after 13, charges was
dismissed do to misconstruction of the statute of breaking and
entering R.C. 2911.13, on property that open to the public, only
show’s the bias toward an African American man. See the transcript
of the docket and journal [indecipherable] of the 11th District Court
of Appeals, page 7, no. 42, 11/21/14 or page 23, no. 191.
{¶22} [14.] The trial judge denied defendant request to get the transcript of
the grand jury, filed 11/19/14, see the transcript of docket and journal
entries No. 36, page 6, Defendant is being held illegally pursuant to
the City of Mentor, Ohio charges was not proving to sustain a
conviction by the prosecution, which makes the jury not impartial as
the law requires that the jury is to be impartial, not impartial, a
substantial error, and this sentence shall be vacated [sic throughout.]
{¶23} None of appellant’s 14 assignments of error makes any argument why this
court should reverse the trial court’s denial of the two motions appealed. Moreover, even
though the memorandum attached to his notice of appeal cites R.C. 2949.17(B), R.C.
2949.19(A), R.C. 2949.092, Lynn v. Limbert, 117 Ohio App.3d 236 (7th Dist.1997), and
State v. Crenshaw, 145 Ohio App.3d 86 (8th Dist.2001), appellant makes no argument
as to why these authorities are relevant to the denial of his motions. It is not this court’s
duty to make appellant’s arguments for him. “An appellant ‘bears the burden of
affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal.’” Tally v. Patrick, 11th Dist. Trumbull No.
2008-T-0072, 2009-Ohio-1831, ¶22, citing S. Russell v. Upchurch, 11th Dist. Geauga
Nos. 2001-G-2395 and 2001-G-2396, 2003-Ohio-2099, at ¶10 and App.R. 16(A)(7). “[I]f
an argument exists that can support appellant’s assignments of error, ‘it is not this court’s
duty to root it out.’ * * * Accordingly, we may disregard an assignment of error that fails
to comply with App.R. 16(A)(7).” Tally, supra, citing Harris v. Nome, 9th Dist. Summit No.
21071, 2002-Ohio-6994. 5
Case No. 2020-L-088
{¶24} The arguments appellant does raise in these 14 assignments of error are
related to his 2014 conviction and are barred by res judicata. “Res judicata bars the
assertion of claims against a valid, final judgment of conviction that have been raised or
could have been raised on appeal.” State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio3831, ¶59, citing State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus.
“[A]ny issue that could have been raised on direct appeal and was not[,] is res judicata
and not subject to review in subsequent proceedings.” State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d
176, 2006-Ohio-1245, ¶16, citing State v. Hutton, 100 Ohio St.3d 176, 2003-Ohio-5607,
¶37; State v. D'Ambrosio, 73 Ohio St.3d 141, 143 (1995). Each of the arguments
appellant now raises on appeal were or could have been raised in Turner I. He is thus
precluded from raising them here.
Outcome: Accordingly, the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: