State v. Cleaver

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State v. Cleaver, 2002-Ohio-2415.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLINTON COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : : - vs WILLIAM T. CLEAVER, This cause JUDGMENT ENTRY (Accelerated Calendar) 5/20/2002 : Defendant-Appellant. {¶1} CASE NO. CA2001-07-022 is an : accelerated appeal by defendant- appellant, William T. Cleaver, of his conviction by the Clinton County Municipal Court for menacing. Judgment reversed and remanded.1 {¶2} Appellant was charged with misdemeanor menacing for allegedly threatening his neighbor in July 2000. The case was continued by both appellant, proceeding pro se, and appellee, state of Ohio, on different occasions until February 20, 2001. {¶3} At the February 20 hearing, the parties discussed a motion to quash subpoenas, which was filed by appellee. Appel- lant had issued a praecipe for subpoenas for eight witnesses on Clinton CA2001-07-022 Friday, February 16, 2001. The trial court denied the motion to quash, granted appellant's motion to continue the trial and re-set the trial date for June 26, 2001.2 {¶4} The trial court's handwritten entry of February 20, 2001, states as follows: {¶5} Case continued for trial at Request of defendant to June 26th 2001 @ 4p.m. Defendant ordered to appear[.] praecipe of defendants court orders to be served[.] Subpoena Motion of state denied. {¶6} Appellant does not dispute that that he did not re- issue his praecipe for his list of witnesses for the new June 26 trial date. On the date of trial, none of appellant's witnesses appeared. Appellant requested a continuance, arguing that he understood the February 20, 2001 entry to direct the clerk's office to resubmit the praecipe for subpoenas with the new trial date. The trial court overruled appellant's motion to continue and appellant was found guilty at trial. {¶7} Appellant appeals, again raises nine assignments of error. proceeding pro se, and Appellant's first assignment of error will be construed to allege that it was error for the trial court to fail to continue the trial because the subpoenas 1. Pursuant to Loc. R.6(A), we have sua sponte assigned this appeal to the accelerated calendar. 2. According to the partial transcript provided to this court of appellant's trial, the trial court spent a portion of the February 20, 2001 hearing discussing with appellant the relevancy of some of appellant's proposed witnesses and whether his witness list could be pared down. A transcript of - 2 - Clinton CA2001-07-022 were not issued. {¶8} First we must note that Crim.R. 17(F) states that, "[a]t the request of any party, subpoenas for attendance at a hearing or trial shall be issued by the clerk of the court in which the hearing or trial is held." {¶9} Clearly, it is not the responsibility of the clerk of courts or the trial court to submit a praecipe on behalf of appellant requesting subpoenas for a new trial date. However, the trial court's entry of February 20, 2001, which ordered that appellant's praecipe for subpoenas be served, was sufficiently confusing to necessitate that this case be reversed and remanded to the trial court. 1983), argument Butler because instruction subpoena App. of to No. CA82-06-0068 appellant appellant witnesses See State v. Hunter (July 22, or ignored to issue trial (overruled trial a would appellant's judge's timely proceed express praecipe for without his witnesses if he failed to do so). {¶10} The unique circumstances in the instant case concerning the confusion over the language of the February 20, 2001 entry mandate that appellant be given an opportunity to subpoena witnesses integral to his defense on the criminal charge. Appellant's first assignment of error is sustained and this case is reversed and remanded. the February 20, 2001 hearing is not available for review because it was destroyed prior to this appeal being filed. - 3 - Clinton CA2001-07-022 {¶11} Based upon this determination, appellant's remaining eight of assignments of error dealing with actions of the judge and parties at trial and the conviction itself, are rendered moot. App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). {¶12} Appellant's conviction is reversed and this case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. {¶13} Pursuant to App.R. 11.1(E), this entry shall not be relied upon as authority and will not be published in any form. A certified copy of this judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. {¶14} Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24. ___________________________________ Stephen W. Powell, Presiding Judge ___________________________________ William W. Young, Judge ___________________________________ Anthony Valen, Judge - 4 -

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.