State v. Rackley
| Docket Number | 112751 |
| Decision Date | 21 December 2023 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVEN RACKLEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
1
2023-Ohio-4656
STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STEVEN RACKLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 112751
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
December 21, 2023
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-12-563955-A
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alan F. Dowling, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Steven Rackley, pro se.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, PRESIDING JUDGE
{¶1} Pro se appellant Steven L. Rackley ("Rackley") challenges the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alternative motion for new trial, motion to dismiss the indictment, and motion for grand jury minutes.
After a thorough review of the applicable law and facts, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} In a prior appeal, this court summarized the procedural history of this matter as follows:
In July 2012, Rackley was indicted on six counts, including two counts of aggravated murder, two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of kidnapping, and one count of tampering with evidence. The date of the alleged offenses was November 8, 2006
In April 2013, Rackley pleaded guilty to an amended indictment of one count of involuntary manslaughter and one count of aggravated robbery. The remaining counts were nolled. The trial court sentenced him to 19 years in prison Rackley did not directly appeal his convictions or sentence.
In March 2014, Rackley moved to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied. Rackley did not appeal this denial.
In June 2014, Rackley moved for leave to file a delayed appeal. This court denied his motion, and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction.
In July 2014, Rackley filed his first petition for postconviction relief (as a motion to vacate or set aside judgment of conviction or sentence). The trial court denied his motion. Rackley did not appeal this denial.
In March 2015, Rackley filed his second petition for postconviction relief (as petition to vacate or set aside judgment of conviction or sentence). The trial court denied his motion.
State v. Rackley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102962, 2015-Ohio-4504, ¶ 3-8 ("Rackley I").
{¶3} In Rackley I, Rackley appealed the denial of his second petition for postconviction relief and assigned the following errors:
1. The [appellant] was deprived due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article
1. Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution when he was not afforded adequate notice of the charges against him.
2. [Appellant's] Sixth Amendment right to counsel in violation of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution, under Criminal Rule 44, when Shaker Hts. Municipal Court did not afford defendant with adequate representation, the Municipal Court gave defendant two days served for the contempt, but never released him, and was not afforded counsel during his critical stages of his indictment.
3.Fourteenth Amendment procedural Due Process was violated when the Court of Common Pleas accepted a guilty plea without having sufficient evidence to support the plea.
4.The appellant was denied the effective assistance guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment's to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.
5. The appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, for an improper amendment to the indictment.
6.The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, counsel was ineffective and showed prejudice for not dismissing for speedy trial violation and coerced waiver of constitutional right.
7. Counsel was ineffective for not motioning for an appeal on the [appellant's] behalf, which violated his Procedural Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Rackley I at ¶ 1.
{¶4} We determined that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear Rackley's petition because it had not been timely filed and Rackley was unable to
demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which he relied in his petition or that the United States Supreme Court had recognized a new federal or state right that applied retroactively to him. We therefore affirmed the trial court's denial of the petition. Id. at ¶ 15-16.
{¶5} Rackley has since filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alternative motion for a new trial, motion to dismiss indictment, and a motion for grand jury minutes. The trial court denied all of the motions.
{¶6} Rackley filed the instant appeal, raising seven assignments of error for our review:
1. The trial court abused its discretion and committed plain error pursuant to Crim.R. 7(D), when it allowed the prosecution to amend Count One of the indictment to involuntary manslaughter by omitting an essential element of the criminal offense charged by the grand jury.
2. The trial court abused its discretion and committed plain error when it failed to properly charge recklessness in Count Five of the indictment in violation of appellant's rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.
3. Appellant was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel and a fundamental fair trial when his trial counsel committed plain error...
To continue reading
Request your trial