Former attorney represents self during hearing on post-conviction relief
Lead Summary
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
A former Hillsboro attorney who resigned from the practice of law as discipline action against him was pending, represented himself during a hearing on miscellaneous motions Thursday in Highland County Common Pleas Court.
John W. Slagle was found guilty during a jury trial in December 2009 on charges of grand theft, a felony of the fourth degree; theft from an elderly person, a felony of the third degree; aggravated theft, a felony of the third degree; grand theft, a felony of the fourth degree; and falsification, a misdemeanor of the first degree. He was sentenced to six years in prison and was ordered to pay restitution in the amounts of $73,516, $18,546 and $82,242, as well as court costs. Additionally, Slagle entered into an Alford plea on April 14, 2010 on one count of theft, a felony of the fourth degree. When he was indicted, the plea was initially a felony of the second degree but was reduced as a result of the plea.
He is also serving an additional sentence on separate charges out of Montgomery County.
Slagle appeared Thursday, in the custody of the Highland County Sheriff's Office as he is currently incarcerated, before visiting Judge Dale Crawford for a hearing on "post-conviction relief."
In January, Slagle filed a petition to "vacate or set aside judgment of conviction or sentence" in which he alleged he was "denied due process and other Constitutional rights because, among other things, he was not permitted to invoke the applicable statute of limitations" and that the "statute of limitations had expired on at least count one (sic). I reserve the right to supplement pending a discussion with appointed counsel."
In the petition, Slagle requested that an evidentiary hearing be granted, that his conviction be vacated or set aside and that he be granted, "such relief as the court deems appropriate."
In the motion, Slagle requested an attorney, an investigator and a psychiatrist to produce evidence.
The Highland County Prosecutor's Office filed a "memorandum contra" in February in response to Slagle's petition.
Crawford said that he had not previously been aware that Slagle had not appealed his conviction; rather, he only appealed the sentence. The Fourth District Court of Appeals of the State of Ohio handed down a judgment in March 2011 that upheld Highland County's sentence and ordered that Slagle serve the full term of the sentence.
Slagle filed a motion to reopen the appeal in May. On June 2, the Highland County Prosecutor's Office filed a "memorandum contra" against Slagle's motion. Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins said that the court of appeals has not made a ruling on whether or not the appeal would be reopened. Crawford said that the court of appeals recently requested several documents from Highland County, including Slagle's pre-sentence investigation.
Addressing Slagle's January petition, Crawford said that post-conviction relief is a "two-step process" in which the judge first determines "if there are substantive grounds for the relief that are asserted in your petition." If that is determined, the matter proceeds to the second step, which is an evidentiary hearing.
"Normally we don't have a hearing on the first stage, but I like to give the individuals, the petitioners, an opportunity to be heard," Crawford said. But because pro se defendants often do not "artfully" explain the matters set forth in the petition, Crawford said he granted an oral hearing.
Crawford asked Slagle if it was correct that he was proceeding in the hearing as his own attorney (pro se).
Slagle told Crawford that he had not been provided with the attorney he had requested, so he was being forced to represent himself during the hearing. Crawford, who had presided over the criminal proceedings against Slagle, said that all people in the state prison system who request the appointment of counsel are not automatically provided with counsel because "everyone wants a lawyer" and that the state would "go broke" if it complied with each request.
"I don't feel adequate at this point to argue the first step that you mentioned," Slagle said. "I'd like to have counsel appointed for that."
Crawford said before an attorney could be appointed, a determination must first be made if there are "substantive grounds in the petition." If that determination is made that there are substantive grounds, Crawford said that he is required by law to inform the public defender's office, and that he has the authority to appoint counsel.
According to Crawford, the court addressed the statute of limitation issue prior to the December 2009 trial. Crawford said the incidents alleged in count one of the indictment took place between 1997 and 2002 and the statute of limitations had run out by the time Slagle was indicted. However, because the offense was not discovered until 2007, it could legally be prosecuted under the 2009 indictment.
"Clearly, that's an issue that could and should have been raised on appeal," Crawford said, so the court of appeals could determine if Crawford had made the right determination according to law.
Crawford asked Slagle if he understood that. Slagle said that he did not, first of all because he did not recall a hearing on the statute of limitations issue. Slagle asked if Crawford remembered whether or not he was present. The judge said that he would not conduct such a hearing without the defendant present.
Slagle then claimed that his trial attorney was "less than adequate" and that she allegedly "refused" to have "certain depositions taken." Slagle said that the Highland County Prosecutor's Office did not "discover what they think they 'discovered' through the process that has been alleged in this court. They knew about it from (the) Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office, who called the disciplinary counsel. That is a step they left out. It wasn't like, 'bingo.'"
Slagle also stated that an issue of jurisdiction should also have been raised during trial and that, "if certain depositions had been taken by my attorney, either back then or now, they would have found another issue which I don't believe was brought before the court. That is, the jurisdiction that should prosecute that."
Crawford said to Slagle, "I don't know how much criminal work you have done in your life, but you can't just go take depositions ... No one is required to give depositions in a criminal case."
Slagle said then alleged his attorney did not do "what was necessary to raise the issue with this court of proper jurisdiction and proper venue. Neither of which would have been in this county."
Crawford said Slagle should have raised those issues with his appellate attorney (who is different from the attorney from the trial proceedings). Slagle said that he felt his appellate attorney did a good job on the issues that were being argued, but that he felt more issues should have been raised in the appeal. Crawford said all he can deal with in this court are matters that are on the record, and the ones being raised by Slagle are not on the record. Crawford said that he could not grant any relief because "these are matters that could have been appealed and were not appealed."
Collins said that in Slagle's motion pending before the appellate court, he raises all the issues he had brought before the court on Thursday.
Crawford asked if Collins had responded to Slagle's petition before the court of appeals, and she said that she had responded on June 2 and that a decision has not been made by the court.
Regarding the motion for post-conviction relief in Highland County Common Pleas Court, Collins asked that it be overruled in its entirety.
"As the court properly noted," Collins said, the relief is barred "at least by my reading of the law. Additionally, he has filed no new evidence other than his own affidavit, which I would allege would obviously be slanted in his favor."
Slagle asked if the prosecutor's response had been filed recently. Collins said it had been filed in February.
"I didn't receive it," Slagle said.
Collins said, "I have certificate of service on it. And (Slagle) responded to it."
Crawford said, "I am quite sure that you did get a copy of that."
"I don't recall it," Slagle said.
Slagle then asked Crawford for advise regarding legal counsel, and Crawford said that he could not give advise, and that the issues he had were an appellate issue.
A former Hillsboro attorney who resigned from the practice of law as disciplinary action against him was pending, represented himself during a hearing on miscellaneous motions Thursday in Highland County Common Pleas Court.
John W. Slagle was found guilty during a jury trial in December 2009 on charges that he allegedly used funds from his clients for his own use. The the jury convicted him of grand theft, a felony of the fourth degree; theft from an elderly person, a felony of the third degree; aggravated theft, a felony of the third degree; grand theft, a felony of the fourth degree; and falsification, a misdemeanor of the first degree. He was sentenced to six years in prison and was ordered to pay restitution in the amounts of $73,516, $18,546 and $82,242, as well as court costs. Additionally, Slagle entered into an Alford plea on April 14, 2010 on one count of theft, a felony of the fourth degree. When he was indicted, the plea was initially a felony of the second degree but was reduced as a result of the plea.
He is also serving an additional sentence on separate charges out of Montgomery County.
Slagle appeared Thursday, in the custody of the Highland County Sheriff's Office as he is currently incarcerated, before visiting Judge Dale Crawford for a hearing on "post-conviction relief." There was also discussion on a separate matter pending before the court of appeals.
During the hearing, Slagle tried to argue that the court in Highland County should not have had the jurisdiction to prosecute him.
During the hearing, Slagle tried to argue that the court in Highland County should not have had the jurisdiction to prosecute him.
In January, Slagle filed a petition to "vacate or set aside judgment of conviction or sentence" in which he alleged he was "denied due process and other Constitutional rights because, among other things, he was not permitted to invoke the applicable statute of limitations" and that the "statute of limitations had expired on at least count one (sic). I reserve the right to supplement pending a discussion with appointed counsel."
In the petition, Slagle requested that an evidentiary hearing be granted, that his conviction be vacated or set aside and that he be granted, "such relief as the court deems appropriate."
In the motion, Slagle requested an attorney, an investigator and a psychiatrist to produce evidence.
The Highland County Prosecutor's Office filed a "memorandum contra" in February in response to Slagle's petition.
Crawford said that he had not previously been aware that Slagle had not appealed his conviction; rather, he only appealed the sentence. The Fourth District Court of Appeals of the State of Ohio handed down a judgment in March 2011 that upheld Highland County's sentence and ordered that Slagle serve the full term of the sentence.
Slagle filed a motion to reopen the appeal in May. On June 2, the Highland County Prosecutor's Office filed a "memorandum contra" against Slagle's motion. Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins said that the court of appeals has not made a ruling on whether or not the appeal would be reopened. Crawford said that the court of appeals recently requested several documents from Highland County, including Slagle's pre-sentence investigation.
Addressing Slagle's January petition, Crawford said that post-conviction relief is a "two-step process" in which the judge first determines "if there are substantive grounds for the relief that are asserted in your petition." If that is determined, the matter proceeds to the second step, which is an evidentiary hearing.
"Normally we don't have a hearing on the first stage, but I like to give the individuals, the petitioners, an opportunity to be heard," Crawford said. But because pro se defendants often do not "artfully" explain the matters set forth in the petition, Crawford said he granted an oral hearing.
Crawford asked Slagle if it was correct that he was proceeding in the hearing as his own attorney (pro se).
Slagle told Crawford that he had not been provided with the attorney he had requested, so he was being forced to represent himself during the hearing. Crawford, who had presided over the criminal proceedings against Slagle, said that all people in the state prison system who request the appointment of counsel are not automatically provided with counsel because "everyone wants a lawyer" and that the state would "go broke" if it complied with each request.
"I don't feel adequate at this point to argue the first step that you mentioned," Slagle said. "I'd like to have counsel appointed for that."
Crawford said before an attorney could be appointed, a determination must first be made if there are "substantive grounds in the petition." If that determination is made that there are substantive grounds, Crawford said that he is required by law to inform the public defender's office, and that he has the authority to appoint counsel.
According to Crawford, the court addressed the statute of limitation issue prior to the December 2009 trial. Crawford said the incidents alleged in count one of the indictment took place between 1997 and 2002 and the statute of limitations had run out by the time Slagle was indicted. However, because the offense was not discovered until 2007, it could legally be prosecuted under the 2009 indictment.
"Clearly, that's an issue that could and should have been raised on appeal," Crawford said, so the court of appeals could determine if Crawford had made the right determination according to law.
Crawford asked Slagle if he understood that. Slagle said that he did not, first of all because he did not recall a hearing on the statute of limitations issue. Slagle asked if Crawford remembered whether or not he was present. The judge said that he would not conduct such a hearing without the defendant present.
Slagle then claimed that his trial attorney was "less than adequate" and that she allegedly "refused" to have "certain depositions taken." Slagle said that the Highland County Prosecutor's Office did not "discover what they think they 'discovered' through the process that has been alleged in this court. They knew about it from (the) Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office, who called the disciplinary counsel. That is a step they left out. It wasn't like, 'bingo.'"
Slagle also stated that an issue of jurisdiction should also have been raised during trial and that, "if certain depositions had been taken by my attorney, either back then or now, they would have found another issue which I don't believe was brought before the court. That is, the jurisdiction that should prosecute that."
Crawford said to Slagle, "I don't know how much criminal work you have done in your life, but you can't just go take depositions ... No one is required to give depositions in a criminal case."
Slagle said then alleged his attorney did not do "what was necessary to raise the issue with this court of proper jurisdiction and proper venue. Neither of which would have been in this county."
Crawford said Slagle should have raised those issues with his appellate attorney (who is different from the attorney from the trial proceedings). Slagle said that he felt his appellate attorney did a good job on the issues that were being argued, but that he felt more issues should have been raised in the appeal. Crawford said all he can deal with in this court are matters that are on the record, and the ones being raised by Slagle are not on the record. Crawford said that he could not grant any relief because "these are matters that could have been appealed and were not appealed."
Collins said that in Slagle's motion pending before the appellate court, he raises all the issues he had brought before the court on Thursday.
Crawford asked if Collins had responded to Slagle's petition before the court of appeals, and she said that she had responded on June 2 and that a decision has not been made by the court.
Regarding the motion for post-conviction relief in Highland County Common Pleas Court, Collins asked that it be overruled in its entirety.
"As the court properly noted," Collins said, the relief is barred "at least by my reading of the law. Additionally, he has filed no new evidence other than his own affidavit, which I would allege would obviously be slanted in his favor."
Slagle asked if the prosecutor's response had been filed recently. Collins said it had been filed in February.
"I didn't receive it," Slagle said.
Collins said, "I have certificate of service on it. And (Slagle) responded to it."
Crawford said, "I am quite sure that you did get a copy of that."
"I don't recall it," Slagle said.
Slagle then asked Crawford for advice regarding legal counsel, and Crawford said that he could not give advise, and that the issues he had were an appellate issue.
[[In-content Ad]]