Former attorney files second appeal alleging trial court errors
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
A former Hillsboro attorney currently serving 10 years in prison for convictions of stealing money from his clients has filed another appeal in the Fourth District Court of Appeals.
On Monday, the state filed a response stating that the court did not abuse its discretion and that the appeal is without merit. Additionally, the state noted the court of appeals has previously denied similar appeals.
John Slagle, 64, 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 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. He was sentenced to six years in prison on the convictions in Highland County and is serving an additional four years on separate charges out of Montgomery County, for a total of 10 years in prison.
Slagle, who is representing himself in the appeal, resigned from the practice of law as disciplinary action against him was pending. On Nov. 9, he filed a brief with the court of appeals with three assignments of errors. He had previously filed a similar appeal, but the court denied all claims and affirmed the findings and sentence of Highland County Common Pleas Court.
Slagle submitted three assignments of error, stating that the court erred when it declined to appoint him an attorney for the appeal; when it did not schedule a post-conviction relief hearing when it was requested; and when it dismissed a motion for post-conviction relief. He asks that the court reverse the decision of the Highland County Common Pleas Court, "with specific instructions as to how it should proceed such that it does not lose its way again."
Visiting Judge Dale Crawford presided over the trial.
During a hearing in July, Slagle had argued before Crawford, saying that he feels he should not have been tried on particular charges because the statute of limitations had expired. 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.
In the appeal, Slagle wrote that it was necessary for him to have an attorney appointed because of "the fact that this case is not simple with regards to the statute of limitations issue. Sufficient proof was presented on the statute of limitations issue to demonstrate a bona fide claim of the expiration of the statute of limitations."
In the response to the appeal, Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins said that the court had no duty to appoint an attorney to represent Slagle in the appeal because "there is no federal or constitutional right to a post-conviction remedy" unless it is a death penalty case.
In the second assignment of error, Slagle wrote that a post-conviction relief petition was filed on Jan. 18, 2011, and a hearing was not scheduled until July 7, 2011. "This late hearing prejudiced (Slagle) by causing his brief to be due in this court of appeals before the post judgment hearing was held and otherwise prejudiced (Slagle) by this unnecessary and undue delay."
Collins responded that the trial court is not required to grant a hearing, and therefore Slagle "cannot argue that he was prejudiced by having a hearing."
In regard to the filing of the post-conviction relief petition, Collins said that the state responded to Slagle's initial filing in February, the Supreme Court of the Ohio ruled on the matter in March, and that Slagle filed a motion in support on May. The hearing was scheduled "only 44 days after (Slagle's) final response. Additionally, (Slagle) fails to demonstrate how the hearing date prejudiced him in any way. While the appeal was due before the post-conviction relief hearing, (Slagle) does not demonstrate how this is prejudicial. Because the hearing was not necessary pursuant to statute, was set in a timely manner and was in no way prejudicial to (Slagle), this assignment of error should be overruled and dismissed."
In the third assignment of error, Collins wrote that "A trial judge's decision to rule upon a post-conviction relief petition should not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion," and that abuse has to be an attitude by the court that is "unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. (Slagle) fails to prove either element of abuse of discretion."
Slagle said that the Highland County trial court "simply did not understand the law relating to matters of this nature. It did not understand that these are civil proceedings and not criminal proceedings ... It is difficult to grasp how a court being advised that the statute of limitations had expired on a count in the indictment resulting in the longest sentence against appellant and being shown a copy of a report clearly evidencing that fact, refuses to appoint an attorney that the information can be fully and fervently litigated."
Collins wrote that that Slagle has provided no affidavits and included no new evidence which could have been raised at trial.
Additionally on sentencing, Slagle wrote that there was a disparity in sentencing and violation of the Ohio Revised Code. The trial court, he said, had been provided with sentencing entries of other individuals in similar cases, "none of which served more than six months."
Collins said that Slagle's appellate attorney had argued that same point during the direct appeal "and this proposition was correctly denied by this court."
Collins wrote that Slagle's appeal was without merit and should be overruled in its entirety.[[In-content Ad]]
On Monday, the state filed a response stating that the court did not abuse its discretion and that the appeal is without merit. Additionally, the state noted the court of appeals has previously denied similar appeals.
John Slagle, 64, 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 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. He was sentenced to six years in prison on the convictions in Highland County and is serving an additional four years on separate charges out of Montgomery County, for a total of 10 years in prison.
Slagle, who is representing himself in the appeal, resigned from the practice of law as disciplinary action against him was pending. On Nov. 9, he filed a brief with the court of appeals with three assignments of errors. He had previously filed a similar appeal, but the court denied all claims and affirmed the findings and sentence of Highland County Common Pleas Court.
Slagle submitted three assignments of error, stating that the court erred when it declined to appoint him an attorney for the appeal; when it did not schedule a post-conviction relief hearing when it was requested; and when it dismissed a motion for post-conviction relief. He asks that the court reverse the decision of the Highland County Common Pleas Court, "with specific instructions as to how it should proceed such that it does not lose its way again."
Visiting Judge Dale Crawford presided over the trial.
During a hearing in July, Slagle had argued before Crawford, saying that he feels he should not have been tried on particular charges because the statute of limitations had expired. 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.
In the appeal, Slagle wrote that it was necessary for him to have an attorney appointed because of "the fact that this case is not simple with regards to the statute of limitations issue. Sufficient proof was presented on the statute of limitations issue to demonstrate a bona fide claim of the expiration of the statute of limitations."
In the response to the appeal, Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins said that the court had no duty to appoint an attorney to represent Slagle in the appeal because "there is no federal or constitutional right to a post-conviction remedy" unless it is a death penalty case.
In the second assignment of error, Slagle wrote that a post-conviction relief petition was filed on Jan. 18, 2011, and a hearing was not scheduled until July 7, 2011. "This late hearing prejudiced (Slagle) by causing his brief to be due in this court of appeals before the post judgment hearing was held and otherwise prejudiced (Slagle) by this unnecessary and undue delay."
Collins responded that the trial court is not required to grant a hearing, and therefore Slagle "cannot argue that he was prejudiced by having a hearing."
In regard to the filing of the post-conviction relief petition, Collins said that the state responded to Slagle's initial filing in February, the Supreme Court of the Ohio ruled on the matter in March, and that Slagle filed a motion in support on May. The hearing was scheduled "only 44 days after (Slagle's) final response. Additionally, (Slagle) fails to demonstrate how the hearing date prejudiced him in any way. While the appeal was due before the post-conviction relief hearing, (Slagle) does not demonstrate how this is prejudicial. Because the hearing was not necessary pursuant to statute, was set in a timely manner and was in no way prejudicial to (Slagle), this assignment of error should be overruled and dismissed."
In the third assignment of error, Collins wrote that "A trial judge's decision to rule upon a post-conviction relief petition should not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion," and that abuse has to be an attitude by the court that is "unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. (Slagle) fails to prove either element of abuse of discretion."
Slagle said that the Highland County trial court "simply did not understand the law relating to matters of this nature. It did not understand that these are civil proceedings and not criminal proceedings ... It is difficult to grasp how a court being advised that the statute of limitations had expired on a count in the indictment resulting in the longest sentence against appellant and being shown a copy of a report clearly evidencing that fact, refuses to appoint an attorney that the information can be fully and fervently litigated."
Collins wrote that that Slagle has provided no affidavits and included no new evidence which could have been raised at trial.
Additionally on sentencing, Slagle wrote that there was a disparity in sentencing and violation of the Ohio Revised Code. The trial court, he said, had been provided with sentencing entries of other individuals in similar cases, "none of which served more than six months."
Collins said that Slagle's appellate attorney had argued that same point during the direct appeal "and this proposition was correctly denied by this court."
Collins wrote that Slagle's appeal was without merit and should be overruled in its entirety.[[In-content Ad]]