In re Lamont, CASE NO. 1-13-02
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
| Citation | 2013 Ohio 3199 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1-13-02 |
| Parties | In re: LAWRENCE FRANK LAMONT |
| Decision Date | 22 July 2013 |
2013 Ohio 3199
IN RE: LAWRENCE FRANK LAMONT
CASE NO. 1-13-02
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY
Date of Decision: July 22, 2013
APPEARANCES:
F. Stephen Chamberlain for Appellant
Terri L. Kohlrieser for Appellee
Page 2
PRESTON, P.J.
{¶1} Petitioner-appellant, Lawrence Frank Lamont, appeals the Allen County Court of Common Pleas' decision denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the State of Michigan's request for his temporary custody pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), codified in Revised Code Chapter 2963. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} In 1972, Lamont and another prisoner, Patterson, escaped from an Ohio prison. (Dec. 13, 2012 Tr. at 9). Lamont and Patterson stole a vehicle and a firearm and drove to five different states kidnapping convenience store clerks, eventually murdering three of the clerks in Monroe County, Michigan. (Id. at 9-10). Lamont and Patterson were apprehended, and Lamont confessed to killing two of the three store clerks. (Id. at 10). Lamont eventually pled guilty to two federal counts of kidnapping and was sentenced to life on each count, which he served in the federal prison system. (Id. at 11).
{¶3} In April 2012, Lamont was released from federal prison on parole and was incarcerated at the Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution ("ACI") in Lima, Ohio to serve the prison time that remained on his sentence at the time of his escape from prison in 1972. (Id. at 11-12).
{¶4} On July 13, 2012, Michigan State Police Officer Marc Moore, stationed in Monroe County, discussed the 1972 murders with Lamont at the prison in Lima, Ohio. (Id. at 8, 12-13). Lamont advised Moore that he confessed
Page 3
to the two 1972 Monroe County, Michigan murders but only because he wanted to get a federal sentence, not a state sentence. (Id. at 14). After that meeting, Moore returned to Michigan where the Monroe county prosecutor decided to prosecute Lamont for the three murders. (Id. at 15-16). Lamont was charged with three counts of homicide open murder and three counts of homicide felony murder in Michigan, and Michigan issued a warrant for Lamont's arrest and sought temporary custody of Lamont for prosecution. (Id. at 18, 21).
{¶5} On November 5, 2012, the State filed a motion for a hearing to advise Lamont of his rights under R.C. 2963.30-2963.35, Ohio's IAD. (Doc. No. 2).
{¶6} On November 7, 2012, the trial court held a detainer hearing advising Lamont of his rights under Ohio's IAD and appointing Lamont counsel. (Doc. Nos. 3-5).
{¶7} On November 16, 2012, Lamont filed a motion with the office of Ohio Governor John R. Kasich to disapprove Michigan's request for temporary custody pursuant to R.C. 2963.30. (Doc. No. 7). Lamont also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Allen County Court of Common Pleas that same day. (Doc. No. 6).
{¶8} On December 13, 2012, the trial court held a hearing on the petition. (Doc. No. 10). Thereafter, the parties filed written closing arguments. (Doc. Nos. 14-15). On January 2, 2013, the trial court denied the petition and granted Michigan's request for temporary custody. (Doc. No. 16).
Page 4
{¶9} On January 14, 2013, Lamont filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 17). Lamont raises one assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
The trial court below committed an error by failing to grant a Writ of Habeas Corpus where the documents requesting extradition were not in order on their face.
{¶10} In his sole assignment of error, Lamont argues that the trial court erred by denying his Writ of Habeas Corpus when the extradition documents were not on their face in order. In particular, Lamont argues that the State of Ohio did not include three pages of the documents received from Michigan. He also argues that no complaint, fingerprints, or photographs were attached to Michigan's IAD request (Form V) as required. Lamont further contends that the introduction of those documents at the hearing without prior notice to the defense—which allegedly occurred herein—cannot cure this defect.
{¶11} The proceedings in this case were in accordance with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), which is codified in R.C. 2963.30 and provides, in relevant part:
(a) The appropriate officer of the jurisdiction in which an untried indictment, information or complaint is pending shall be entitled to have a prisoner against whom he has lodged a detainer and who is serving a term of imprisonment in any party state made available in accordance with Article V (a) hereof upon presentation of a written
Page 5
request for temporary custody or availability to the appropriate authorities of the state in which the prisoner is incarcerated: provided that the court having jurisdiction of such indictment, information or complaint shall have duly approved, recorded and transmitted the request: and provided further that there shall be a period of thirty days after receipt by the appropriate authorities before the request be honored, within which period the governor of the sending state may disapprove the...
To continue reading
Request your trial