Appellate court dismisses case out of Highland County

The Fourth District Court of Appeals has dismissed the appeal of a man who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in a 1996 case, but noted that the appeal was not without cause.

According to a decision filed last week by the court of appeals,  "Timothy J. Taylor appeals the sentence imposed by the Highland County Common Pleas Court after the court vacated his original sentence because it failed to advise him of potential post-release control sanctions. Taylor argues that the court improperly ordered him to serve consecutive, as opposed to concurrent, prison terms However, because the re-sentencing entry does not contain the guilty plea, the jury verdict, or the finding of the court upon which the convictions were based, it does not constitute a final, appealable order. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal and must dismiss it."

According to the decision, a grand jury in Highland County indicted Taylor in 1996 on charges of murder, an unspecified felony; abuse of a corpse, a felony of the fifth degree; tampering with evidence, a felony of the third degree; and theft, a felony of the fourth degree. He pleaded guilty to the counts of abuse of a corpse, tampering with evidence and theft, and to a lesser charge of manslaughter, a felony of the first degree.

Taylor acted as his own attorney during the appeal proceedings.

"The trial court sentenced Taylor to 10 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter, one year for abuse of a corpse, four years for tampering with evidence, and one year for the theft crime," according to the court's entry. "The court ordered that Taylor serve the sentences consecutively to each other, for a total of 16 years in prison. The court also ordered that Taylor serve the sentences consecutively to “any sentence imposed upon the defendant herein in Clermont County, Ohio[.]

In April 2009, Taylor filed a motion to correct the judgment, arguing that

his sentence was void because the court failed to advise him of any post-release control sanctions. The trial court agreed, vacated his sentence, and held a resentencing hearing. At the hearing, Taylor made the additional argument that when the court selected a prison term for each charge, the terms had to run concurrently with each other and with a sentence he received from a court in Clermont County based on the Supreme Court of Ohio’s ruling in Foster and R.C. 5145.01. However, the trial court rejected this argument and imposed the same sentence as before, with the addition of its advisement on post-release control sanctions.

Taylor alleged the following assignments of error to the court:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I: The Trial Court errored [sic] by disregarding statutory requirements of R.C. 5145.01 to a mandatory concurrent sentence. Violating the Ohio.Const.I.Sec 2, Equal Protection, and the 5th, and 14th Amendments of the [U]nited States Constitution Due Process of Law, and Equal Protection of Law.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II: The Trial Court errored [sic] by using judicial factfinding and applying R.C. 2929.14(E)(4). Which has been severed by the Supreme Court of Ohio in STATE V. FOSTER for violating the rule sent down by the United States Supreme Court in BLAKELY V. WASHINGTON, which held tht [sic] judicial factfinding violated the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution. In addition this also violated the Appellant’s 5th, and 14th Amendment rights to Due Process, and Equal Protection of Law.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III: The Trial Court errored [sic] by enhancing this appellant’s sentence beyond the ‘Statutory Maximum’, as defined by the United States Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington. Violating the Appellant’s rights under Ohio.Const.I.Sec 2, as well as his Constitutional rights under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution.

"Here, the court’s resentencing entry does not contain 'the guilty plea, the jury verdict, or the finding of the court' upon which the convictions were based. The court simply stated that it found that Taylor “has been found guilty and convicted of” various offenses. The court made no reference to his guilty plea. Thus, the court’s entry is not a final, appealable order. The State of Ohio has candidly agreed in a supplemental filing that the order does not comply with the requirements of Baker. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of a final, appealable order.

However, we note that Taylor “has an adequate remedy at law by way of a motion in the trial court requesting a revised sentencing entry,” according to the court of appeals.

Because of a chance in Ohio law, Highland County Prosecutor Jim Grandey said, Taylor, "was brought back i 2009 to be re-sentenced. All entries now have to say if sentencing was pursuant to a jury verdict or a peal agreement. That wasn't in there. That is why the appeals court dismissed the appeal, it is not an appealable order at this time. The court will have to put an entry on in both the 1996 case and the 2009 case he entered a plea of guilty."

The court found there were reasonable grounds for the appeals, but dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant pay all costs.