State v. Bunting

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State v. Bunting, 2004-Ohio-7116.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee vs. PAUL E. BUNTING Defendant-Appellant : : : : : : : : : JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. Case No. 2004CA00244 OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Massillon Municipal Court, Case No. 2000TRD4793 JUDGMENT: Affirmed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 27, 2004 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant Massilllon City Prosecutor One James Duncan Plaza Massillon, OH 44646 PAUL EDWARD BUNTING, PRO SE Trumbull Correctional Institution 5701 Burnett Road Stark County, App. No. 2004CA00244 2 P.O. Box 901 Leavittsburg, OH 44430-0901 Stark County, App. No. 2004CA00244 3 Farmer, J. {¶1} On May 13, 2000, appellant, Paul Bunting, was charged with driving under suspension in violation of Massillon City Ordinance 335.07 and fictitious plates in violation of Massillon City Ordinance 335.11. On May 16, 2000, appellant appeared and pled no contest. The trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to one hundred eighty days in jail, twenty-five suspended, and ordered him to pay a $250 fine plus court costs. {¶2} On July 7, 2004, appellant file a postconviction motion for relief from judgment. By entry and order filed same date, the trial court denied the motion. {¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignment of error is as follows: I {¶4} ABUSED "THE MASSILLON MUNICIPAL [TRAFFIC] COURT JUDGE ELUM ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING [DEFENDANT] APPELLANT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT WHEN THE COURT'S ENTRY WAS VOID AB INITIO BECAUSE SAME COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION CONFERRED BY ARTICLE ONE OF SECTIONS TWO AND TEN AND SIXTEEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT SENTENCING HEARING BECAUSE THE ARREST WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY PRETEXTUAL AND APPELLANT WAS UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED OF HIS FREEDOM OF LIBERTY WHEN IMPOSED CRUEL AND Stark County, App. No. 2004CA00244 4 UNUSUAL EIGHTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITED PUNISHMENT BY EXCEEDING THE FINAL COURT ENTRY SENTENCING IMPOSITION OF INCARCERATION WITH AN IMPOSED EXCESSIVE BAIL NOW WARRANTS RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT HEREFORE." I {¶5} It is necessary to first address the procedural status of this appeal. Appellant timely filed his brief on August 13, 2004 and included the following certificate of service: {¶6} "I hereby certify that I have sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing APPELLANT'S BRIEF ON ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS (relief from judgment appeal) traffic case no. 2000-TRD-04793, to the Massillon Municipal Traffic Court clerk for whomever assigned as respondent (the law director or city prosecutor), at the address; CLERK, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., Municipal Traffic Court, P.O. Box 1040, Massillon, OH 44648-1040 (deposited in the Trumbull Correctional Institution's internal mailing system for inmates), executed this 9 day of August, 2003." {¶7} App.R. 13 governs filing and service on appeal. Subsections (C) and (D) state the following: {¶8} "(C) Manner of service {¶9} "Service may be personal or by mail. Personal service includes delivery of the copy to a clerk or other responsible person at the office of counsel. Service by mail is complete on mailing. {¶10} "(D) Proof of service Stark County, App. No. 2004CA00244 5 {¶11} "Documents presented for filing shall contain an acknowledgment of service by the person served or proof of service in the form of a statement of the date and manner of service and of the names of the persons served, certified by the person who made service. Documents filed with the court shall not be considered until proof of service is endorsed on the documents or separately filed." {¶12} Upon review, we find these rules have not been met and we are free to disregard appellant's brief. Regardless of this ruling, we will address the assignment of error because it is based upon the jurisdictional requirements of R.C. 2953.21. I {¶13} Appellant claims the trial court erred in failing to grant his request for postconviction relief. We disagree. {¶14} Appellant was convicted on May 16, 2000. His motion for postconviction relief was filed on July 7, 2004. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(A)(2), appellant's motion was time barred because more than "one hundred eighty days after the expiration of the time for filing the appeal" had passed. {¶15} The sole assignment of error is denied. Stark County, App. No. 2004CA00244 6 {¶16} The judgment of the Massillon Municipal Court of Stark County, Ohio is hereby affirmed. By Farmer, J. Hoffman, P.J. and Edwards, J. concur. _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ JUDGES SGF/db 1209 [Cite as State v. Bunting, 2004-Ohio-7116.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vsPAUL E. BUNTING Defendant-Appellant : : : : : : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY CASE NO. 2004CA00244 For the reasons stated in the Memorandum-Opinion on file, the judgment of the Massillon Municipal Court of Stark County, Ohio is affirmed. _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ JUDGES

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.