State v. Dawson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State v. Dawson, 2006-Ohio-3503.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 87102 STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : vs. : : RICCOTIZE DAWSON, : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION : JULY 6, 2006 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: : : : Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-433027 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: William D. Mason, Esq. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: George Rukovena, Esq. Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: Riccotize Dawson, Pro Se Inmate No. 452-252 Lorain Correctional Institution 2075 South Avon Belden Road Grafton, Ohio 44044 MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J.: {¶ 1} In August 2003, defendant Riccotize Dawson pleaded guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter with a firearm specification and one count of felonious assault. and sentenced Dawson to a The court accepted the pleas three-year term on the firearm specification, to be served prior to a ten-year sentence on the voluntary manslaughter count felonious assault count. and seven-year sentence on the The court ordered the manslaughter and felonious assault sentences to be served consecutively, for a total sentence of 20 years. In May 2005, Dawson asked this court for leave to file a delayed appeal, but we denied that motion. He then filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. As grounds for withdrawing his plea, Dawson argued that the court failed to inform him that he would be waiving his constitutional rights, that the court failed to inform him that his penalty would include post-release control, and that the court failed to set forth its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. The court denied the motion and this appeal followed. {¶ 2} We summarily reject all of Dawson s arguments as he is impermissibly using a Crim.R. 32.1 post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas as a substitute for appeal. See City of Shaker Heights v. Jackson, Cuyahoga App. No. 86161, 2006-Ohio-707; State v. McGuire, Cuyahoga App. No. 86608, 2006-Ohio-1330. All of the arguments raised in this appeal could have and should have been raised on a direct appeal from his conviction. Instead, Dawson waited two years to file a motion for a delayed appeal. When we denied him leave to file a delayed appeal, he filed the motion currently before us. Nothing contained in that motion is of a character that would demonstrate the requisite manifest injustice required under Crim.R. 32.1. Instead, Dawson submitted for consideration to the court fairly run-of-the-mill legal arguments relating to the validity of the plea that would ordinarily be raised on direct appeal. Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN JUDGE COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, P.J., and PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR. N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R.22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1).

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.