STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

. . . . . . . .. . . . ..

IN THE OHIO SUPREME COURT

Case No. 1 3- 0366On appeal from Coshocton County Court of

v. Appeals, Fifth Appellate District

SCOTT HOLMES, C.A. Case No. 12-CA-17, decided Nov. 5, 2012

Defendant-Appellant. Reconsideration denied Jan. 17, 2013

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION

OF APPELLANT SCOTT HOLMES

Scott Holmes, # 638858

Lebanon Correctional Institution

3791 State Route 63, P.O. Box 56

Lebanon, Ohio 45036

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, PRO SE

Jason Given, Coshocton Co. Prosecutor

318 Chestnut Street

Coshocton, Ohio 43812

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, STATE OF OHIO

M ki 0 4 2 10 13

CLERK OF COURTUPREME ^^UPil OF ®H!0

^J

^ /^ /

.F ^(y`, ^ ^^ ('4'^y^^ ^+ ? .^ ^7 ^

^^^cP..FR^^ OF COURT^^^^^^^ ^^^1^'1_ _10..F_0H10

L

^-

^^^v^,^

^,^ 7^

00 03 000

,je^seky

^,-^

®R

v^^^'•^av^. ^' ^^ ^° ^^^ `r^^e^w^e..^a.e.^... v^W^c^^..^`^

^-^,ro

OR,-

VNIW\ v.?^Ie-

v`lx^ v.

0^

L .,

ov^v

\` y L.^ 1 plT^r ^ ^i ^3^ A.J ^+.^^^ .OL^ ^ ... ... - ^ J

,^`^^ e `^^^^. ^` ^°a ^, ^^ ^ ,

')-S CX)^-

\I-Ab V\A\. -1-'l,, ,..^r7^^15- Jte® ^L-006 01,

^^^

EXPLAINATIONS WHY THE OHIO SURPEME COURT

SHOULD HEAR THIS CASE

1. APPELLATE COURT DENIED LEAVE TO RESENTENCE IN VIOLATION OF

SENTENCING RIGHT AND IN CONFLICT WITH LONG ESTABLISHED

JURISPRUDENCE.

This appellant had presented a motion to resentence before the common pleas court

but was denied due the claimed lack of jurisdiction in the matter. This Appellant later

presented Motion For Leave To Resentence before the appellate court who denied the

action as not have been appealed within thirty day of the common pleas court's denial.

The appellate court's action violates a component of the appellant's sentence pursuant

to Crim. R. 32(B)(2) where right for leave to appeal the sentence is granted. This

Appellant challenges that EVEN IF the common pleas court had jurisdiction to deny

resentencing, Crim. R. 32(B)(2) allows him the opportunity to file for a delayed appeal

of sentence.

II. THIS CASE IS OF GREAT PUBLIC AND GENERAL INTEREST AS IT INVOLVES

THE OVERSENTENCING OF ABOUT 20,000 INMAATES INCREASING THE COST

TO THE PUBLIC IN TAXES AS MUCH AS $350,000,000 YEARLY BECAUSE THE

SENTENCING OF FIRST-TIME OFFENDERS DOES NOT CONFORM WITH OHIO

SENTENCING STATUTE.

This Appellant challenges that his consecutive sentence is in violation of R.C.

2929.11(B) where similar offenders are to receive similar time for similar crime.

Page 1

.^ V•y^^^•VV^..'v+GdS7^

^ ^ vv^ \ ^ /^ ^R N ^ Y\

s, \v.

A_ Qa ^ ^® 1r^ Vti.ea u^^ d.v ..^".

cC

^,^„r . ^^ \`A`C#J^,GO^^(i ^ ^°- ^PJ0^^1^^3 .^U^ '^'Y`UV^C..V^ 4',^S A

^c^a^\^J`,^

Gj^e,Ww^-- ^.^ t---\ \^^vvo co^^^-,C^f

1,`i

S^ V

\

^^^^

^.ti^ c^^`,^ ^ ^ ^S^ .^a^^ ^^^. ^^- ^ ^•^ ^5^ ^.Q'

w;,v^n^.n,.v.w. sa^,^eX•,^-v^s^c^ "^c^.,e.^ cu^rv^ ^ee c^^w..^^-s

c^^ g ^^ vs^ ^^. °5 ^- ^^^ ^ s ^ ►-3 ^^\a.^a3 ^ ^^P^S1^\1 C^ ^^.

ow ^`^p.^^ v^ ^ ^C^^- C^ ^^a^cz.^^ ►\^:^

^

1^ o-so- 2-

^v^.v.^^,^s v v^, ^ara^-^.

c)c^ocl) ) o0

W44.,Qk

C"4 ,^k

^^^^^^\OY ^ i`'

^v^`^ ^@'^/Lr sr ^ `+.Dr'^@^e il^C ^^^^p •@ ^v^i C^v4V^9 ^^^C

^,¢^^^'elw,Q/w^'^ ^/wre2,• ^^ 4 0.-^^^, ^..^,^ Y^ev\iJ'^t't... ^^ ^^^5

OK ^Z,0\4`r

^^ ^vWovi ^\f 'e3'^K 'r

vro^-X-^VOcJ ov- aV

^ ..^`\C)C&O

^c-e^^s -^^ ^^ ^ ^^^^^., ^ e^ ^... ^ ^^ c^^►.^ ^^^c

C.c^^^r`^ c^j,,^ ►^- ci^u^ ^^^ e^r^va^ ^i^ GLC

eA^ :d»^^.5^ ^^rv v ^^. c^•%^

CO._®

Cf`,2^eAr3 ,"'ec.-e:w 4 ^- ^^fS^S•^ CM^vab^^ ^JV^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^S ^

°Gvi/i

Vw Va7

^^vV^^O]^^'3^+^ mVV'^. V ^^.W ^^^C^15^^^^/^.^."P^

^^^ ^P-^^c3 Y c^.^ \V(^+^VWVC3Y

^Q,'V^ vy\/v\ (^, YI ^ ^b^ \.\^NY^,MJ ^^^^^, ^-^ ^ `° w' ^ i ^+"' v^-3 !s`a^ . .

\;v- &v"

^ ^,-^^c :, ^ ^^6'^ ^•^ C o^r.. r^ c^.^v°^u e.c^'^. v^ e^..^ ^^;^^ a,ar\

\ o,- e,) e, Lk

s^,^,C"-e.^•.-e-^'- ^^^- ^S=^r,.^..L^^, . °^ ^. C,^^C.2-) ^^^'^..^--"v^ ^'^'^ ^"

^,^

^-^^-

^ Ccs^•^ ^^`^°^^. ^-z^- ^,- ^^ ^.,.^.^.Q. `^..^.^..^.-^®

^--^-^-------

^,

.^.^•.--^^.^``^^ ^^- . ^ are^:c '^^^ ^ ^^-^-^-' ^" C^

4,0

CA,

^^ ^ ^^^,^,,,^ ^ ^^.^, ^. ^•^.`cc^ ^^ `--^^^ ^

s^^4-O-e11•

^^^^^^^^^^^ ce, v eA

;^o c

^^^^W-N eA.,s

^^^^^

^

^.,^ .^\ ^,,^^ h^,J^

^s•c^ ^^^s ^^^. ^

^^ s^, ^^^►.,^. ^

rc^

CJ^

^ ^►i^.^ ^. ^^ ^ ®^ ^ tio 0 i;0 `-

^.t

to`', (A,o,^> 2IA `41 vS^ .^ ^.

^•^,^,.,^^e^eec^ ^\ oe..^^-Q.d^^ ^vS c^v v^\^^N`°t ^`5S

'^^,-e,G+..^^^.;^^r..

l`^^r:^5 ^5^^3a,^^ ^^ •C.ZS^"`

iP^

^\ ^v y \,

tAl^^ ^^^c^^^^^

dQ ^ « e •. ^® ^`1-^ e i;l ^c ^^`^.

^^.rve.

\ ^ va Fr

Cs'

ev

,^\,-e-^y^^^`^•^c^5 ^v'e-c^®`^•.^^^m,^^^^'^\

o^ ^^^^^^' -,^.^ a^.1^e^' Ca^..^ad^^ o^•:^W `^"-C'.^.^^'eYr•t^.^ C^+^^'.-^.e.^.. ^

<^K< C. ^Lol2,0ti.L^

L`A ^

°0 c^.

eNolse-

\,+ay

\ y Q^,4s ^ ^^, 'Ce ir^^^^ ^^`, `^f^ ^G^^ ^^sS C^^ ^ ^^ ^^Dc ^J t•^l^J ®ra ^9 ^

ay^

"C^^^, ^^

0\^^%C,^ ^^OA

ox^-:

VQAI,).s e^ A&.4-

,^ `-^,- ,^ ^'4^y ^ ^^ ^ ^^-e^. •`^^^;,^.^,^ ^^,r ^'^, ^ . ^'^ ^'^.. Se^►^, ., ^ ^+

^J^J^ i^.3^ F1^^^^V U` ^v^ °L^ lb+a7^ J s.. v ^"" ^1Z0^., t°^-@.^r^^ ^^3i.t!^/^,4n^^

P;^-, -e^ 4JJ Q^c-

vv^,"^^i^L ^(x

p OJ\,^S . \?^^v^

c^^

c(-y

C S

c.^^&S -^^y

^' °'-

oV

9

^?^.^^JtiC^.. ^- &----

\^ ^^l^a4+^,.`'^ C3's1 •^,%l^',e ^^-^°gJ

) ,^^^' ^A

\O

\^ i c46^,.e ^ \ i ^^_^ ♦^edV^^ 1.9e+^ ^A4 ` rr^Gr`i\.^^

^^^ i^F ^\ ^^^.y+ ^16^V'^C.+' ^ I ^^ ^V l ®'^3^ \ y`^`^i^^ b ^ \ Ys^^.°'^^V ^^i^f ^

V^AA3^ ^jA^^G. ^.)v°Q.V^^S^•-^'V^ \%^ V"°' J^A ^° °^3

°01^s^ . ., ^ ^,^V^.,^^ ^9° ^V^ _

OV WCS +^3 ^ Y'mBL.-` ^t^^^ `^\ ^ ^^^^^^^ sa

cD^ OC^C'

\-> cci

^^^4•C^^>^i.._ ^^^`^1^^ ti^^^^,^^4 c^"^- ^^^ ^L^.,^ ^

^

^y

^^,.^ R

\ _ ^ - , vt^s ®°&y%\\

CY , esv^^v

^^

v CQ%"-^^.

1,Alk^

LR)\-, ^^-

^^^^.^^e`^^^

_ --. v C^ ^^^-4^... ^^,►J ^ ^`A-^%

^'^'i1 V ' `' ^

e,\ Al,

s^wC e^^^^-5

OA^I, V%

^^^ ^°v.^^• ^

^^ ^^ ^^

-s 11^^

^^..r•c^^, ^^uc^ ^^^`3 ^

^r-

( i^{,^ AV V wpryy ^p,^ C4d

4-1 '6 ^^-

^^

.,,

I ^ ^^^ A `

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIOFIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO

Plaintiff - Appellee . Case No. 2012CA0017

-vs- JUDGMENT ENTRY

SCOTT A. HOLMES

Defendant - Appellant

This matter is before the Court upon a Motion for Reconsideration filed by

the Defendant-Appellant on November 15, 2012.

Upon due consideration, the Court finds the motion to be not well taken

and DENIES the same.

MOTIONS DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Fd 6

JAN 7^ 2n13 R ^ xmr uON. SHEI G. FARMER

.^.^.-,^-...,..-

' vw•°'.^.c>

^"! ^ . . . . .

i a U{ ..t a F h^h,.

t.. &.P 4

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO

Plaintiff-Appellee

-vs-

SCOTT A. HOLMES

CASE NO. 12-CA-17

JUDGMENT ENTRY

Defendant-Appeiiant

This Court hereby sua spontedismisses the within appeal for want of a

Notice of Appeal. It appears from the face of the Notice of Appeal filed ontimely

October 19, 2012, that Appellant is attempting to appeal a judgment filed on July

1 2012. As such, from the face of the Notice of Appeal, it appears the within3,

appeal is untimely.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

COSTS TAXED TO APPELLANT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Nuv 0 5 2012 :^. ^^, JUDGE

^..r ... . - B

UDGE

JUDGE

J u I 31 2012 10: 47 P.02Fax:330-763-2193

STATE OF OHIO,plaintiff,V.

SCOTT A. HOLMES,Defendant

lournalized: Journal a^s Page(s) q3a-

r-^

L-J

70rf

^sr..^; 3Z

.^s ==C:)^"^

This cause came on for non-oral consideration of the defendant's motion for

concurrent sentences.The Court finds

that the defendant was convicted of five counts of Rape in

violation of Ohio Revised Code Section 2907/02(A)(2), felonies of the first degree on

October 28, 2010. The Courtfurther finds the defendant was sentenced to nine years

confinement in a state penal institution on each count, each count is to be served

consecutively for a total aggregate period of forty-five (45) years.

The defendant has filed what the Court terms is a Petition for Post-conviction

Relief pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 2953.21 (A

Ohio Revised Code Section 2953.21 (A)(1) reads as follows:

"(a) Any person who has been convicted of a criminal offense oradjudicated a delinquent child and who claims to render theucha denial or infringement of the person s rights as

judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or theo

constitution of the United States, is a felony, v^^ hs beennmate,convicted of a criminal offense that

and for whom DNA te ^^ Revised Codeoor^under section 2953.822953.71 to 2953.81 ofof the Revised Code avai abie admissible evidenceor lated toconsideration of all theinmate's case as described in division (D) of section ^9ea and ofthe Revised Code provided results that establish, byconvincing evidence, actual innocence of that felony offense or,if the person was sentenced to death, establish, bryavaclear

t ng andconvincing evidence, actual innocence of the aggcircumstance or circumsta ^e ^^Ps ^r®°f ^h^^ ^^°ntenCe guilty death,committing and that is or aremay file a petition in the court that Nm09

imposed 3 sentence, stating the

State v Scott HolmesDecision on Motion for Concurrent Sp t^eeceslPetition for Post-Conviction Relief

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASCOSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO

` I CASE NO. 09CR0123

JUDGMENT ENTRY

grounds for relief relied upon, and asking the court to vacate orset aside the judgment or sentence grant and otheraterelief. The petitioner may file a supporting affidavit

documentary ev►dence in support of the clailm for relief.

(b)As used in division (A)(1)(a) of this section, "actual innocence"

means that, had the results of the DNA testing conducted under

sections 2953.71 to 2953.81 of the Revised°a tr al and had those2953,82 of the Revised Code been presentedresults been analyzed in the context to the inmate's c^ase als descrbedavailable admissible evidence relatedin division (D) of section 2953.74 of the Revised Code no reasonable

factfinder would have found the petitionl,wasf sentenced to deathhthe petitloner was convicted, or, if the personno reasonable factfinder would the petition was found theaggravating circumstance or circumstancesguilty of committing and that is or are, the basis of that sentence of death."

In addition, Ohio Revised Code Section 2953.21(A)(2) states as follows:vised

"Except as otherwise provided in section 2953.^t ^f shalthe be filed noCode, a petition under division (A)(1) of this selater than one hundred eighty days after the date on which, t^ {h^ ltranscript is filed in the court of appeals in the direct appeal involves

t is fled in thejudgment of convictio^he ^ateuon which the trialtranscr ppeala sentence of death,supreme court. lf no appeal is taken, except as otherwise provided

in section 2953.23 of the Revised Code, expiration of the timenolater than one hundred eighty days after thefor filing the appeal."

period. Therefore, the Court is without jurlsd>Iction to re

appeal filed and, therefore, the petitionThe Court finds that there has been n t^, specificallY 180 days from the

^,sw not filed within the time required by the to Ohio Revised Codeexpiration of the time for filing the appeal. Therefore, pursuant

21 the Court may not entertain a petition filed after the expiration of saidSection 2953.21 view this matter. Therefore, the

Petition is denied. the defendant's Memorandum and finds #^etotallydditi®n, the Court did reviewaIn

without merit and, regardless of section 2953.21; the Court would have denied

petition on its merits.

Case No. 09CR0123State v Scott Holmes

pecision on Motion for Concurrent Sen ge^Petition for Post-Conviation ReliefF 2

liiI[ )ATED: JULY 30, 2012

ROBERT D. RINFR T, JUDGE(By Assignment)

xc Assistant Prosecutor Benjamin E. Hall, Defendant, Adult Probation, Victim's Assistance, and Visitingludge Rinfret

I Copies distributed on f °3 1 0 11 bY 51-'^

Case No. 09CROf 23State v Scott Holmes

Decision on Motion for Concurrent SePnat^eericeslPetition for Post-Conviction Relief3