rrnr^ ^14f. ^t^(.. . ca^r • ^n, explanaiton of why this case is a case of public or great...

IN THE SUPRENlE COURT OF OHIO 0 8 - 0 8 9 8

pS - c12- d83STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 43- (' SL- ^p yC^_

Plaintiff-Appellee, On Appeal from the e lIt.CY,County Court of Appeals,

vs. Appellate Distri Q-) cA- 60

-Ôbtirr 66Jo71 , C.A.CaseNo. L) 11 CPr- S3

Defendant-AppeIlant.

MEMORANDUM I UPPORT OF JUWSDICTIONOF APPELLANT lT' ^..oCnS a)L

^2&fr cta,NAME ATID NUMBER

rrnr^ ^14F. ^t^(.. . Ca^r • ^n, ^^^^̂ 42zrt 'I 88

^'D^lans^;4lc^,n41ô^ ^4â1C1TY, STATE & IP

PHONE

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, PRO SE

Dbmw M S m;'t1,.P EC // R NAAftE

^d 1..0^31wY^^ 0._^rAD RESS /

c , STA .& zIP

PHONE

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, STATE OF OHIO

11

MAY t) 7 7008

CLERK OF COUR`rSUPHGME COURT OF OHIO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NOS.

EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PiJBIJC OR GREAT GENERALINTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONALQUESTION ......................................................................................................................................

STATEMENT OF TIk? CASE ........................................................................................................

STATEMENT OF TIHE FACTS ......................................................................:...............................

FIRST PROPOSITION OF LAW ....................................................................................................

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..........................................................................................................

APPENDIX:

State v. L^), App. No. unreported

EXPLANAITON OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLIC ORGREAT GEN'ERAL iNTERE3T AND INVOLVES A SLJ$STAAITIAL

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

7t-5 Ly.43:.c S ft n L?G'^Jra / /^(urv% _7114- SecorncL GL s-li.'L-r Olro

(jv"11S ^, 3 frs e^st:SSl.ev `fa îviî+rs^ ^ `^(^s^S ^,v.y75

^P^.SSiLv. ]'â m ctry^-.MUV^ ^ptl4,sLO`Y3̂̂ 3•- t^x4ri"7î..c.n..P^,.(̂ 7L /1LrCl^vi^jtr

tl3!'^^ ^ t 3 .l^ L^+^°ti3 ,7P g !L ^ • lJ^ .^'ra^

i\-e 03 CL) o ya. , 6.r.aC o+- 62ec';l ^^ o2ovs' Zp4j ^np^.lTeo^ ôC QQ(uVnTa3 m3 f'e^rcr CP'c.->c_ "1w oq

O;y t. !^r3r

7L ^^.G^ l ÛT{S

(j^^^}^ ^ti^Ct^ ô 3 nGc 1 ., ^ ^^ ^z^^^ â^^ YKt \b

l t C f ^'

VV

Î`4,Ae Q 3 . ^`^ ^ êc .c^ +- ^. }/^t l^ ^^C hLH O 1/

/^^.CRd J 3I.cC? T ^ 4 r,y

(^ 7;f"er L:a.

D,Jr` on ► y ,.dWlf-c^-•.^^d'0 .^"3 vQ l ^ ^2ao^ ?7,*0 Psl , i^:s Grws^^^

-v ^p^^rasl llny c7-flA,, ^sJv^r ^^r^^^ o 3;

trYl^ ^1G1ec^^j, ^1^JJ t1r yV^^ DC.y.n1

^ ^ftiTWêr ^JkD^, z "^ ^To %^-- J$W^

îsC.^^ ^1t'^L` T' CC.t^ 3 sy! l cr `,t^,','^L<Î. 7-1, ^3 ^^'^ d-O rs.[fJ

/^2^vgS^. ^^` St .welr^tnYS â ^.^ ,r 4aW J h0)

Av^ tn 3 a1341 Q Ji^ôST^n't'^^^^}vbi^ O U.. ^^ pteârul

^pr^ST^Tâ,,,,^ ^y

!"1^^^ Tv" ^^ylf^^ 3`"te^ h ..,^^

^ '^ ^^ ^^ î^^^'^^ LPJ^c"7 eu^ ! ^ / t.•.f 14Y^l*-^(ê^^ ^c, ^ks (^s -^•- d

STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS

This case is an appeal from the trial court's decision to resentence Appellant to

maximum consecutive terms of incarceration. The case involves multiple charges and

case numbers. Appeal of this case involves the other cases since the charges and

sentences are intertwined and were essentially treated by the trial court as one case.

Initially, Robert Logsdon, Appellant, was indicted on December 15, 2003 for one

count of Receiving Stolen Property in case number 03CR1042. (Docket Sheet attached as

Dac. A) That case proceeded with the public defender representing Appellant until on

Apri15, 2005 Appellant was indicted for Aggravated Murder in 04CR0239. (Docket

Sheet attached as Doc. B) The trial court granted the State's motion to consolidate both

cases and try them together. (May 13, 2004, Doc. A & B) Soon after the indictments were

consolidated, the court gninted the public defender's request to be removed as counsel.

(May 28, 2004, Doc. A & B) The court appointed private counsel to represent Appellant

since Appellant could not afford to hire his own counsel. (Id.)

New counsel secured a couple of continuances of the trlal and on September 9,

2004 requested the court appoint co-counsel to help with the case as well as made a

request for funds to hire an investigator. (September 9, 2004, Doc. A & B) The motion

for co-counsel was supported by information by the public defender's office indicated the

complexity of the cases and the number of potential witnesses. Defense counsel's request

for co-counsel was denied. (Se•ptember 16, 2004, Doc. A&B)

After an additional continuance, motions made, and witness list disclosed, the trial

proceeded on April 11, 2004 on all the charges. (April 11, 2004, Doo. A&B) In the

middle of trial Appellant pleaded guilty to a Bill of Information charging him with

Involuntary Manslaughter a felony of the first degree and Tampering with Evidence a

felony of the third degree. (Case Number 05CR0283, Docket Sheet attached as Doc. C)

Appellant also pleaded guilty to the original Receiving Stolen Property charge, a felony

of the fourth degree. (April 12, 2004, Doc. A) The Aggravated Murder charge in

04CR0239 was disnrissed on April 19, 2005. (Doc. B) On May 13, 2005 appellant was

sentenced to prison for eighteen months for the Receiving Stolen Property charge, five

years on the Tampering with Evidence charge, and ten years for the Involuntary

Manslaughter charge. All the sentences were ordered to be served consecutively with

each other and represented the maximum sentence allowed on all the charges. (May 13,

2005, Doc. A&C)

On June 13, 2005, Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence. (Doc. A&C)

This court on the authority of State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St 3d 1, 2006 Ohio 856,

reversed and remanded the cases back to the trial court for re-sentencing. (Copy of

Decisions Attached) On remand, the trial court imposed the exact same maximum and

consecutive sentence. (April 26, 2007, Doc A&C)

Appellant appeals the trial court's decision to re-sentence him to maximum,

consecutive sentences.

k K Sa' PROPOSiTIUN OF LAW

d

^r ^'d`r^ d• âst'^ lb9 0/l%0 ,,*^'3'al ^, ^,o 0 6•- nl. ^ o -- P.^'6 71f^', a2oC

-l^^^ lN` ^^Q^^^ Ca^t'C o^ p^..^b Ô+t.. `7Zd7r^^^Gr^lc. ^•^ôt'"+=^/^^^'

F61 C^.•^c^- CC-) ^'y' teg^'.ca. ^vel:c.c^ ^T ^^raJ^`w,y ^ôîMPnS%7â„

b^ {t Se.^'Te, cr. ^t a.^ a^ ^ •^ ^ lvl •31C.l^n.rw -!l I

j ^ ^/

^r-ÛC^ Qk(ylt^ , oc C^(JM"ls.Ov" D^- ^ ^L^^6riT, `T'Ly(I)vk, p on i " ^ avvw. , . !1 ^ @^C Ce Qh,^.- ps•- i

^5•^J llr %- . r toC^T ' ^ TTi.^, .C WC p J l o S •^C Pi-F ,<e t/wc^"w 0 ^(- `3 f.a S, ^Cov.SCw+..^s

'^-(OW^ p^rrD êw'Tmrc)^ ^j'e:7cli^ (n)K.S ^^.. q^-t!°'r{e' R,.^w''"OLV `7^0 e,,^

/ L.i Y-nYvr.t ^,o n 5'C .T•^T ^ D.w^ dG T° -'7~,S > f°•`'° & r` e lVOfFC Dl f(^& /

CVd S 15 ^bVfi -'To1 M^DS+- k• ^r/.Sd•^ .•f.co;,â.^G.c.. a,l •,^"; N-

JW Ef•t, 7lu /OY^^^• ^-w Qb^!'+-^ ^ v Ma^tc,

C_'q,^."`^ \O('/ E?^VÔ ^c„ CCA•.Sa•^,^ , ^^ tN+.ADS/•J`^ ")Y1^nwwvrt (janSe^(JC^+ntir

S O i I 1

D ' (woc,. -^,av, 771•*- jc w(= wc eS ,-r-Ot. aT ep\Cwrf ^,.

(k^1...^y

^J•^^^'tN.enh WG^j JG•^'^s•-^c^QY,^ J^r` ûPf.a«..a. Wvd'r ISSv^C/ /YS

d^<<SS a-; v. ôSTec - G'onSe$uo.'7'ty -^ •Tr;a 1^„^rT /,^= s N-aT s c$v,,cc.^

//-^ma^,- ^J^•^/^Q.S D( C.U+" t IS EGo^lOnf ^y^ Iry.PDS•'^^ Mu^r^„

N^ //u' m •(t. N<'3 A^ StN^= tiL (+ ^J ^34II /NL M1. R'd'Ô^ o r, Q^f 4 I' (^3 G

jYlay (tv..ic<- or (vLoa),^v 0 Jtr-^••.L. , p, \^ iCr 1^^. CMaJtT',

Q+fld t^ ^^` J^ r t• r Q\^ 1• ,^ds "j La Gl Ûk.T o wt.... ^ S !io n "fr. r.I -t-O \a-/.,l •

q^c• ^953• o^ (O^) (^) !$) '; Gea I; s^r^ 7-D ^•vtiar>yS ljô-

êt lnlenG^r'p êc;l.Sô+^ rYtaw^^^s-Û I±t,..•ace) ('in tS.Sus, or' ^W.t"COCt

WW:[ ^ ACJ^'oTus C^û:1I^S î CJ/vrCCJ'`v Cu v^S.Jrf. ^3n`c•u

r°^ e.^Ca'^Û,NS

Ovv-^:"cwb -S^Y\'Ca v. ê.a1t w5 t^j+ te a^- ^.^P • 71a p eA.-71 , ).oo7 - Dk'"b.^

^.l^8^ t ^w^'C'e ^+- "7r! ie( ^jov(T ^ô^ ^'10 t i MpD3¢. (^ ^LnTawG^

l..ovi7rar y 715 ô'W ^ `1 ^^ S^v7tn^ î^ Q.lJ ^.,.,.ti^ ( D^ ct'^'sr 4wJ 'yLA

'M.Crc;►• t

PROPOSI'I7O1V OF LAW

jt... -rr.a'LN i b+1$

^pe 1`fLr'C S

....--.---^--^

CDUwce.., L-3c1 Tt?r pwly

CavcTS ^ rhPolS:T%o^ o^ .fe 7'o-.u^ , 0,.,! ^yT 6^^5 DVê t 1Y^Y.^ eonb:c.^[^ 6 r.

^(aU^G^> ^^^yÌ^tr ^s3r^c.s ^

`?'c:.1 Qc^cTS (̂ .c:sS:o. `raWr3 ^ r„ e.^'^^-̂i•'

i1.+^c_

pVac'Q,41a., R.'etVa,'ST ^f (io ^n^rLt^.

(oJtbu1 AfP4ko,•'Cc cpUrc.e„! LJ.! f-or -j0

Qr^v^ t eov,r?' Cvv,-4,t L„)r-s F-r-,i

.^ moy,F '7'o p^.s ►^:tl D^ sêed^f ^ c%ul ^tnJr-r^1

'/j. t ov i o^S ^Pcl^ c`11àr ` J v n^., l L,! m S ^^►^ ^^: `'^",L^.. ^N f ,T /î!;Y^-! _^ `7"U

alfba.. ^f,^^ Gu^^ta! h/f^s tnK^r:cTiv^. ûr ^}L.l.n^. C^q̂r g,.

^(!,c 3 ^S^^S !^^ 0MDJ< Tb Oca^cr ^: r,s^^ w^ "! rwT r7 ^ri w^ 1, f îh.^^y^r lJ"

iq-,viou5 9^MI.Ta eoroa..f (,JNoS iv' ^}r•^^^ `^ -w

^Lr U(at4a^"r s V , 1'1"y F1<. t- W.d ;w V a l.wî ar Y N/ 4s P-J i j Vcov` QY^

^^dcf5"CcrJ^ wg_ 'g- J^rit7o^w c3o-df L..- 41 y,.,rS .

CONCLUSION

This case raises a substantial constitutional question, involves a felony and is one of

public or great general interest. Review should be granted in this case.

HffiAND-̂^cif"y^./ T `{/^

NA

M" c ..L.-INSTITUTION

p^ o-, a^ 72rrADDMa

C!7'Y,TATE t•• ^,JA dh.^d q`7^ -

DEFENDANT-APPELLAN'f, PRO SE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum in Support of 7urisdiction of

AppellantQa^x,.^'T ^u43d ov^ , has been served by U.S. mail postage pro-paid tokoo

(!\V ^. ^gscr^- Prosecuting Attomey

, 3'a ^ C^1 u,w^^^ ST •^g^^ ILbf , this,,1,ffday of A^ D , 20 O

se^-;^.^^^ D ►^,b u.^ro ^ R^^..s^-'SIONA1UkE

9e^ek t.e ►^d^ o-74QNAME AND NUMBER

DEFENDAAIT-APPELI.ANT, PRO SE

IN THE COURT. OF APPEALS OF OHIO .SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

CLARK COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

Plaintiff-Appellee . .: . Appellate Case N9s :07-CA5.0- .07-CA-53

v.

ROBERT R. LOGSDON

Defendant-Appellant

Tri.al ^Court,Casa Nos:. S-C$-05-C$ 283I04'^

(Criminal Appeal fromCommon Pleas Court)

FINAL ENTRY

af

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on the 28th day

March , 2008, The judgments of the trial court are Atflrmed. .

Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.

WILLIAM H. WOLFF, JR.,

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

Copies mailed to:

Amy M. SmithClark County Prosecutoes Otrice50 E. Columbia StreetP.O. Box 1608Springfield, OH 45501

Arvin S. Miller2312 Far Hills AvenueSuite 114Dayton, OH 45419

Robert R. Logsdon#A96-072Ross Correctional InstitutionP.O. Box.7010Chiliicothe, OH 45601

Hon. Richard J. O'NeillClark County Common Pleas CourtCourthouse, 101 N. LimestoneSpringfield, OH 45502-1120


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

CLARK COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

Plaintiff-Appellee _ _ : _Appelfstte_Caeal^l4s,.^7-GA 5Q__ -_-_.

V.

ROBERT R. LOGSDON

Defendant-Appellant

STATE OF OHIO

Trial Court Case No. 05-CR-283

Plaintiff-Appellee Appellate Case Nos. 07-CA-53

V.

ROBERT R. LOGSDON

Deferidant-Appellant

Trial Court Case No. 03-CR-1042

ORDERRendered on the 28th day of March, 2008......................................

PER CURIAM:

Upon review, it is appropriate to consoiidate the appeals in these matters. They are

Ordered Conso{idated.


IT IS SO ORDERED.

WILLIAM H. WOLFF, JR., P

JA

MARY'E. D NOVAN, Judge

Copies mailed to:

Amy M. SmithClark County Prosecutor's Office50 E. Columbia StreetP.O. Box 1608Springtieid, OH 45501

Arvin S. Miller2312 Far Hills AvenueSuite 114Dayton, OH 45419

Hon. Richard J. O'NeillClark County Common Pleas CourtCourthouse, 101 N. LimestoneSpringfield, OH 45502-1120

Robert R. Logsdoa#A96-072Ross Correctiociai institutionP.O. Box 7010Chillicothe, OH 45601


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

CLARK COUNTY

STATE OF OHIOAppellate Case Nos. 07-CA-50

Plaintiff-Appellee 07-CA-53

V. Trial Court Case Nos. 05-CR-283 &

ROBERT R. LOGSDON03-CR-1042

Defendant-Appellant(Criminai Appeal fromCommon Pleas Court)

OPINION

Rendered on the 28"' day of March, 2008.

AMY M. SMITH, Atty. Reg. #0081712, Clark County Prosecutor's Otfice, 50 East ColumbiaStreet, P.O. Box 1608, Springfield, Ohio 45501

Attomey for Piaintiff-Appeliee

ARVIN S. MlLLER, Atty. Reg. #0016355,2312 Far Hills Avenue, Suite 114,- Dayton, Ohio -45419

Attomey for Defendant-Appellant

BROGAN, J.

Robert Logsdon was convicted of invoiuntary manslaughter, tampering with

evidence, and receiving stolen property in two separate cases pursuant to his pleas of


guilty. Logsdon has appealed and his counsel has filed Anders briefs stating he could find

no meritorious issues to raise on appeal.

Logsdon was originally charged with aggravated murder but that charge was

dismissed in exchange for Logsdon's pleas which he made after his trial began. Logsdon

was originally sentenced to terms of 18 months forthe receiving stolen property charge, five

(5) years for the tampering charge, and ten (10) years on the involuntary manslaughter

charge. All the sentences were ordered to be served consecutively after the court made

certain factual findings. We reversed Logsdon's sentence per State v. Foster, 109 Ohio

St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, and remanded for re-sentencing. The trial court upon remand

imposed the same sentence.

In re-sentencing, the trial court noted the seriousness of the crimes for which

Logsdon had been convicted and his extensive prior criminal record. The trial court stated

it considered all the statutory factors related to sentencing. We see no indication the trial

court imposed a sentence contrary to law, and the court had full discretion to impose

sentences within the statutory range. State v. Foster, supra, and State v. Wellman, 2007-

Ohio-6896.

Appellate counsel mentions six additional possible issues which we find have no

arguable merit. Counsel suggests prior appellate counsel should have appealed Logsdon's

underlying conviction as well as his sentence. There is, however, no suggestion that

Logsdon's pleas were not intelligently and voluntarily entered. The trial court certainly had

discretion to deny trial counsel's request for co-counsel. Appellate counsel certainly was

not ineffective for not arguing that trial counsel should have moved to dismiss the

indictments on speedy trial grounds. It was trial counsel who sought the continuances in


order to prepare for trial. The charges for which Logsdon was convicted are not allied

offenses of a similar import, and thus triai counsel was not ineffective for not requesfing that

the court consider them so for sentencing purposes. Lastly, there was no evidenoe in this

record to suggest Logsdon was led by the court to believe he would receive a six-year

sentence in exchange for his guiky pleas. Logsdon was given an opportunity to file his own

briefs but he has not done so. We are satisfied after review of the record that there is no

arguable merit to these appeals and Logsdon's convictions should be affirmed. The

Judgments of the trial court are Affirmed.

WOLFF, P.J., and DONOVAN, J., concur.

Copies mailed to:

Amy M. SmithArvin S. MillerRobert R. LogsdonHon. Richard J. O'Neill


rrnr^ ^14f. ^t^(.. . ca^r • ^n, explanaiton of why this case is a case of public or great...

Documents