State v. Cotten

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Ohio » 5th District Court of Appeals » 2013 » State v. Cotten

State v. Cotten

State: Ohio

Court: Ohio Southern District Court

Docket No: 2013-Ohio-1960

Case Date: 05/10/2013

Plaintiff: State

Defendant: Cotten

Preview:[Cite as State v. Cotten, 2013-Ohio-1960.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO                                JUDGES:
                                             Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J.
Plaintiff-Appellee                           Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
                                             Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
                                             Case No. 12CA60
PRINCE CHARLES COTTEN, SR.
Defendant-Appellant                          O P I N I O N
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                     Criminal Appeal of the Court of  Common
                                             Pleas, Case No.   1976 CR 8941
JUDGMENT:                                    Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                      May 10, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee                       For Defendant-Appellant
JAMES J. MAYER, JR.                          PRINCE CHARLES COTTEN, SR.
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY                         MARION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
JOHN C. NIEFT                                Post Office Box 1812
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR                         Marion, Ohio   43301-1812
38 South Park Street
Mansfield, Ohio   44902

Richland County, Case No. 12CA60                                                               2
Wise, J.
{¶1}   Appellant Prince Charles Cotten, Sr., aka Charles Cotten, Sr., appeals the
decision of the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, which denied four post-
conviction  motions  filed  by  appellant,  who  is  serving  a  life  sentence  for  a        1976
aggravated murder conviction. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.1
{¶2}   On February 6, 1976, police were summoned to a convenience store in
Mansfield, Ohio, after appellant and his wife presented a suspicious check. During the
ensuing events, appellant shot and killed Officer Michael R. Hutchison and shot and
wounded Officer Roger W. Casler.
{¶3}   Appellant  was  subsequently  convicted  before  a  three-judge  panel  of
aggravated murder with specifications, uttering or possessing with intent to utter a
check of another known to have been forged, and knowingly causing physical harm to
another  by  means  of  a  deadly  weapon.  Upon  direct  appeal,  this  Court  affirmed
appellant’s  convictions  and  sentences.  See  State  v.  Cotton                              (October   26,   1977),
Richland  App.No.  1611,  1977  WL  200852.  Appellant  then  appealed  to  the  Ohio
Supreme Court. On August  17,  1978, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s
convictions, but commuted his sentence to life imprisonment. See State v. Cotton
(1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 8, 381 N.E.2d 190.
{¶4}   Appellant has since filed numerous self-styled pro se motions with the trial
court, the details of which need not be recited in the present opinion. At issue in the
present appeal are the following filings:
1     In appellant’s pro se brief, he utilizes the name “Prince Charles Cotten, Sr.” Some of
the trial court documents in the record use the last name spelling of “Cotton” and some
do not include “Prince” in the caption. We will herein maintain the caption used by the
trial court in the judgment entry under appeal.

Richland County, Case No.   12CA60                                                  3
{¶5}   July 17, 2006: Motion requesting a copy of resentencing entry.
{¶6}   January 29, 2007: Motion for a new trial.
{¶7}   March 28, 2012: Motion for leave to “ask constitutional questions.”
{¶8}   March 28, 2012: Motion to “correct and certify the records.”
{¶9}   On July 12, 2012, the trial court issued a judgment entry overruling the
aforesaid four motions.
{¶10}  On July 27, 2012, appellant filed a notice of appeal. He herein raises the
following five Assignments of Error:
{¶11}  “I.    JUDGE DEWEESE WAS IN ERROR AND THE APPELLANT WAS
PREJUDICE (SIC) WHEN JUDGE DEWEESE OVERRULED APPELLANT’S MOTION
FOR A COPY OF RE-SENTENCING JUDGMENT ENTRY.
{¶12}  “II.   JUDGE DEWEESE WAS IN ERROR AND THE APPELLANT WAS
PREJUDICE (SIC) WHEN JUDGE DEWEESE OVERRULED APPELLANT’S MOTION
FOR A NEW TRIAL INLIGHT (SIC) OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE LAB. NO. 7013.
{¶13}  “III.   JUDGE DEWEESE WAS IN ERROR AND THE APPELLANT WAS
PREJUDICE                                                                           (SIC)   WHEN   JUDGE   DEWEESE   OVERRULED   APPELLANT’S
REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO ASK CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION(S) PURSUANT TO
O.R.C. §2701.02.
{¶14}  “IV.   JUDGE DEWEESE WAS IN ERROR AND THE APPELLANT WAS
PREJUDICE (SIC) WHEN JUDGE DEWEESE OVERRULED APPELLANT’S MOTION
TO CORRECT AND CERTIFY THE RECORDS.
{¶15}  “V.   JUDGE DEWEESE WAS IN ERROR AND THE APPELLANT WAS
PREJUDICE  (SIC)  WHEN  JUDGE  DEWEESE  ATTEMPTED  TO  CONDONE  THE

Richland County, Case No.   12CA60                                                           4
STATE  SUPREME  COURT’S  RULING  THAT  WAS  CONTRARY  TO  THE  U.S.
SUPREME  COURT’S  DECISION  [,]  WHICH  WAS  DONE  WITH  MALICE  AND
MALICIOUS INTENT IN BAD FAITH, IN A WANTON AND RECKLESS DISREGARD
FOR  THE  U.S.  SUPREME  COURT’S  DECISION  DECLARING  OHIO’S  DEATH
SENTENCE  WAS  UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THEIR  RULING  WAS                                         ‘JUDGMENT
REVERSED!’  TO  THE  EXTENT  THAT  IT  UPHELD  IMPOSITION  OF  DEATH
PENALTY AND CASE REMANDED.”
I., IV.
{¶16}  In his First and Fourth Assignments of Error, appellant contends the trial
court erred in denying his motion for a copy of his resentencing entry and his request to
“correct and certify the records.” We disagree.
{¶17}  In the 1978 Ohio Supreme Court decision in appellant’s direct appeal, the
Court stated: “The judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to the conviction of
the appellant is affirmed and *** the death sentence imposed upon appellant has been
modified to life imprisonment.” See Cotton, 56 Ohio St.2d 8, 14. Appellant presently
appears to argue that he was nonetheless entitled to subsequent resentencing in the
trial  court  under  R.C.                                                                    2929.06,  and  has  demanded  a  copy  of  such  resentencing
documents. However, R.C.  2929.06 was not intended to be retroactive and clearly
limits itself to aggravated murders that occurred “on or after October 19, 1981.” See
R.C. 2929.06(E).   See, also, Johnson v. Mitchell (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 123. Moreover,
appellant provides no legal authority for his claim that the trial court itself is under a
duty to provide him with document copies from the court’s files or to otherwise “certify”

Richland County, Case No.   12CA60                                                             5
the trial court record for him at this point without a valid records request to the Richland
County Clerk of Courts.
{¶18}  Appellant's First and Fourth Assignments of Error are therefore overruled.
II.
{¶19}  In  his Second Assignment  of  Error,  appellant maintains the trial court
erred in denying his motion for a new trial. We disagree.
{¶20}  Crim.R.  33(B)  states  in  pertinent  part:                                            “***  Motions  for  new  trial  on
account of newly discovered evidence shall be filed within one hundred twenty days
after the day upon which the verdict was rendered, or the decision of the court where
trial by jury has been waived. If it is made to appear by clear and convincing proof that
the defendant was unavoidably prevented from the discovery of the evidence upon
which he must rely, such motion shall be filed within seven days from an order of the
court finding that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within
the one hundred twenty day period.”
{¶21}  An abuse of discretion standard applies to motions for leave to file a
delayed motion for a new trial. See State v. Pinkerman (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 158,
160, 623 N.E.2d 643.
{¶22}  Appellant appears to argue that laboratory item “7013,” which he does not
presently describe, provides exculpatory evidence entitling him to a new trial.   We note
appellant did not provide proper Crim.R. 33(C) affidavits to the trial court in this regard,
nor has he alleged or demonstrated how he was unavoidably prevented from obtaining
this evidence for more than thirty years.   See Crim.R. 33(A)(2), (A)(3), (A)(6).

Richland County, Case No.   12CA60                                                                  6
{¶23}  Upon review, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of
appellant’s motion for a new trial. Appellant's Second Assignment of Error is therefore
overruled.
III., V.
{¶24}  In his Third and Fifth Assignments of Error, appellant appears to argue
that  the  trial  court  erred  in  not  permitting  him  to  re-argue  or  raise  constitutional
challenges to his sentence. We disagree.
{¶25}  The law of the case doctrine provides a decision of a reviewing court in a
case remains the law of the case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent
proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels. U.S. Bank v. Detweiler,
Stark App.No.  2011CA00095,  2012-Ohio-73,  ¶  26, citing Nolan v. Nolan  (1984),  11
Ohio St.3d 1, 462 N.E.2d 410. As best as we can decipher appellant’s claims in these
two remaining assigned errors, we find they are barred by the doctrine of law of the
case, and the trial court did not err in denying same.
{¶26}  Appellant's Third and Fifth Assignments of Error are overruled.
{¶27}  For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the decision of the Court
of Common Pleas, Richland County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Gwin, P. J., and
Farmer, J. concur.
JUDGES
JWW/d 0424

Richland County, Case No. 12CA60                                               7
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO                                                                  :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee                                                             :
:
-vs-                                                                           :   JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
PRINCE CHARLES COTTEN, SR.                                                     :
:
Defendant-Appellant                                                            :   Case No. 12CA60
For  the  reasons  stated  in  our  accompanying  Memorandum-Opinion,  the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to appellant.
JUDGES

Download 12ca60.pdf