Slagle files notice of appeal with Supreme Court of Ohio

A former Hillsboro area attorney currently serving a prison sentence on charges that he stole from his clients has filed a notice to appeal his case to the Supreme Court of Ohio. 

John W. Slagle 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. When he was indicted, the plea was initially a felony of the second degree but was reduced as a result of the plea. 

He is also serving an additional sentence on separate charges out of Montgomery County.

Slagle resigned from the practice of law as a disciplinary action was pending against him.

In March 2011, the Ohio's Fourth District Court of Appeals filed a decision that upheld the decision of the trial court regarding Slagle's case. In March 2012, the court of appeals filed a judgment denying an application for his case to be reopened. On Friday, April 27, the court filed a judgment denying a petition for post-conviction relief. 

On April 19, Slagle filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Slagle, who is representing himself on appeal, wrote in the notice that, "This case raises a substantial constitutional question and is one of public or great interest." 

Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins is representing the state in the case. 

In his memorandum in support of jurisdiction, also filed with the Supreme Court on April 19, Slagle said the matter "involves a substantial constitutional question."  

"This cause presents two critical issues for the Court's determination on matters that are of great general interest and involve a substantial constitutional question and five felony convictions for all those convicted of a felony and for all citizens:
1. A person indicted and tried in this State is entitled to the benefit of equal protection of the State's Statute of Limitation laws.
2. ORC Section 2929.11 (B) mandates that all defendants similarly situated be sentenced similarly. The failure to do so constitutes a denial of the equal protection and due process of law."

Slagle asked that the Supreme Court return the case to the court of appeals, with appropriate instructions in order to correct the errors made in this matter.

"All of this supporting information was provided to the court of appeals, and it refused to hear it or decide it, saying since it was filed in the form of a supplement to the originally filed motion to reopen his appeal, it would not be considered, and this in spite of no rule against it," Slagle wrote. "The court of appeals seemed tangentially to indicate that this issue was brought before it previously, but even a cursory review of the record below will clearly demonstrate that it was not directly or indirectly submitted, briefed or denied. As a consequence then, it is apparent that Appellant was treated differently than others; a situation forbidden by both the US and Ohio constitution. Thus, the court of appeals' choice to ignore Section 2929.11 (B) of the Ohio Revised Code should not be permitted to stand, and it is respectfully so requested."