[Cite as Lakewood v. Collins, 2017-Ohio-8316.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 105227
CITY OF LAKEWOOD
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
CARL A. COLLINS
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Lakewood Municipal Court
Case No. 2014 TRC 04596
BEFORE: Laster Mays, J., E.T. Gallagher, P.J., and Boyle, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 26, 2017
-i-
FOR APPELLANT
Carl A. Collins, pro se
12621 Walnut Hill Drive
North Royalton, Ohio 44133
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kevin M. Butler
Lakewood Law Director
By: Pamela L. Roessner
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
City of Lakewood
12650 Detroit Avenue
Lakewood, Ohio 44107
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.:
{¶1} On January 9, 2015, defendant-appellant Carl A. Collins (“Collins”)
entered a no contest plea in the Lakewood Municipal Court to operating a vehicle under
the influence (“OVI”) (Lakewood Codified Ordinance 333.01). In exchange for the no
contest plea, the city of Lakewood (“city”) amended the OVI charge under R.C. 4519.11
to the local ordinance, and dismissed the remaining charges of OVI refusal, OVI driving
under suspension, improper lane usage, and seat belt violation. Collins’s sentence
included fines, court costs, community control supervision with conditions, and a driver’s
license suspension.
{¶2} Prior to Collins’s plea, the trial court denied a motion to suppress the
evidence of his arrest finding there was probable cause and that the officer properly
advised Collins of the effect of his refusal to take the chemical test. Collins filed a second
motion to suppress with arguments that mirrored the first motion. The trial court did not
address the duplicate motion.
{¶3} Collins appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress in
Lakewood v. Collins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102953, 2015-Ohio-4389 (“Collins I”).
Collins posed three assignments of error in Collins I: (1) lack of probable cause; (2) trial
court’s denial of the second motion to suppress; and (3) the city’s refusal to release his
impounded vehicle. This court affirmed the trial court’s determination, finding no merit
to Collins’s claims, and observed that the entry of Collins’s no contest plea rendered the
pending, redundant second suppression motion moot. Collins I at ¶ 12, citing State v.
Bogan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84468, 2005-Ohio-3412.
{¶4} On October 28, 2015, upon remand to the trial court’s jurisdiction, Collins
was ordered to appear for a payment hearing and to address the community control
conditions with the probation department. On November 6, 2015, the trial court issued
an entry providing that the vehicle could be released to a licensed driver after towing and
storage costs were paid. On January 31, 2016, the trial court denied Collins’s motion to
dismiss and vacate the conviction due to a violation of Collins’s speedy trial rights.
{¶5} Collins’s current appeal asks the court to revisit the: (1) motion to suppress;
(2) lack of probable cause; and (3) release of his vehicle from impound. He has added a
fourth assigned error in the instant case challenging the trial court’s denial of his speedy
trial rights.
{¶6} We find that Collins’s first three errors are barred by the doctrine of res
judicata.
Under the doctrine [of res judicata], “a final judgment of conviction bars the
convicted defendant from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an
appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that
was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial which resulted in
that judgment of conviction or on an appeal from that judgment.”
State v. Santiago, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95564, 2011-Ohio-3059, ¶ 14, quoting State v.
Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 180, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967).
{¶7} As to the remaining assigned error, the trial court stated that Collins
waived his right to a speedy trial and the waiver was supported by the record. After a
review of the record, we find that Collins’s failure to raise the speedy trial issue in Collins
I bars his claim. “‘Res judicata extends to bar not only claims which actually were
litigated, but every question which might properly have been litigated.’” State v.
Shearer, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103848, 2016-Ohio-7302, ¶ 4, quoting State v.
Thompson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 70532, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 5202 (Nov. 21, 1996).
{¶8} All of the assigned errors are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
It is ordered that the appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Lakewood
Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
__________________________________________
ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR
Lakewood v. Collins
Combined Opinion