[Cite as State v. McCollim, 2011-Ohio-6751.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF LORAIN )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 11CA009952
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
LAWRENCE H. MCCOLLIM ELYRIA MUNICIPAL COURT
COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 2010CRB01810
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: December 29, 2011
BELFANCE, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Lawrence McCollim has appealed, pro se, from the
December 29, 2010 judgment entry of the Elyria Municipal Court. This Court affirms the trial
court’s December 29, 2010 entry to the extent it denied Mr. McCollim’s untimely motion for a
new trial. As Mr. McCollim’s assignments of error are not properly before this Court, we
decline to address them.
I.
{¶2} On June 21, 2010, a complaint was filed in Elyria Municipal Court alleging that
on June 19, 2010, Mr. McCollim committed the crime of assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13, a
misdemeanor of the first degree.
{¶3} The matter proceeded to a bench trial and Mr. McCollim was found guilty of
assault. Mr. McCollim was sentenced to ten days jail and a $750.00 fine. Mr. McCollim’s jail
2
sentence was suspended, as was $300.00 of the fine. The judgment entry was journalized on
November 16, 2010.
{¶4} On December 15, 2010, Mr. McCollim, through counsel, filed an untimely motion
for a new trial. See Crim.R. 33(B).
{¶5} On December 29, 2010, the trial court issued an entry. The only portion of the
entry which was final and appealable denied Mr. McCollim’s motion for a new trial.
{¶6} Mr. McCollim has appealed, pro se, from the trial court’s December 29, 2010
entry, raising eleven assignments of error for our review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
“THE PROSECUTION ERRED BY WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE DURING
DISCOVERY IN VIOLATION OF OHIO RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE R. NO. 16 (A).”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
“THE PROSECUTION ERRED BY FAILING TO DISCLOSE, DURING
DISCOVERY, THEIR INTENTION OF CALLING A SPECIALLY
QUALIFIED OR EXPERT WITNESS AND FAILING TO HAVE THE
WITNESS PROVIDE HIS RECORD, AS REQUIRED BY OHIO RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE R. 16 (K).”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
“THE PROSECUTION ERRED BY SUBORNING PERJURY IN VIOLATION
OF OHIO RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT R. 8.4. (c).”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ALLOWING THE STATE TO
INTRODUCE STATE’S EXHIBIT NO. 8 BASED SOLELY ON THE
TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS WHOM HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE
UNTRUTHFUL AND UNBELIEVABLE IN OTHER TESTIMONY DURING
QUESTIONING.”
3
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V
“THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED BY ALLOWING CANADIAN LAW TO
INFLUENCE HIM IN HIS DECISION MAKING. THIS DENIED MCCOLLIM
OF A FAIR TRIAL AS GUARANTEED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT CONDUCTING A PROPER
SEPARATION OF WITNESSES.”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VII
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT RULING ON A MOTION FOR
ACQUITTAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE STATE’S CASE. A VIOLATION OF
OHIO RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE R.29 ( A ).”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VIII
“THE PROSECUTION ERRED BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS OF
FACT AND ALLUDING TO MATTERS THAT ARE NOT RELEVANT OR
SUPPORTED BY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE.”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IX
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN USING THE DOCTRINE OF
TRANSFERRED INTENT.”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR X
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING MCCOLLIM GUILTY OF
ASSAULT[. THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING WAS] AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE IV,
SECTION 3 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR XI
“DEFENDANT MCCOLLIM WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL DUE TO THE
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ERRORS THAT HAVE BEEN SET
FORTH.”
{¶7} Mr. McCollim has raised eleven assignments of error for our review. We,
however, do not reach the merits of his arguments for the reasons set forth below.
4
{¶8} As noted above, the only final, appealable portion of the entry appealed from is
the denial of Mr. McCollim’s untimely motion for a new trial. As Mr. McCollim has not raised
any argument with respect to the denial of his motion for a new trial, we affirm the trial court’s
December 29, 2010 entry to the extent it denied his untimely motion for a new trial. Further, all
of Mr. McCollim’s assignments of error relate to pretrial issues, trial issues, or issues related to
Mr. McCollim’s conviction; yet, Mr. McCollim has not appealed from his November 16, 2010
judgment entry of conviction. Accordingly, we decline to address the merits of his assignments
of error.
III.
{¶9} In light of the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s December 29, 2010 entry to
the extent it denied Mr. McCollim’s untimely motion for a new trial. Mr. McCollim’s
assignments of error are not properly before this Court.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Elyria Municipal
Court, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
5
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
EVE V. BELFANCE
FOR THE COURT
WHITMORE, J.
DICKINSON, J.
CONCUR
APPEARANCES:
LAWRENCE H. MCCOLLIM, pro se, Appellant.
CYNTHIA M. ADAMS, Prosecutor, City of Elyria, for Appellee.