Judge Patrick Dinkelacker Complaint 1 April 12, 2017 judge Patrick Dinkelacker violated numerous rules of ethies and displayed a tremendous amount of hypocrisy in ruling over the case of peer judge Tracie Hunter after his wrongful death lawsuit was moved to visiting Judge. twas clear during proceedings and in the media that he was, biased andl impartial, based on his open disregard and disrespect towards judge Hunter, During multiple proceedings, he asked her questions, then yelled at her for answering his questions. He threatened her with jail for being “late,” although it was stated in open courton the record by her attorneys that she was instructed not to appear in eourt, which { personally witnessed. Moreover, the court's docket read that the hearing he accused judge Hunter of being late to attend had been previously vacated by his office as evidenced by the clerk of court website. believe jutlges are required to treat all persons appearing before them with respect and decorum, Jn my opinion, it was clear, based on his statements in court, that judge Dinkelacker had every intention to violate a federal court order, which was the only reason he summoned her to court to incarcerate her after the federal court stayed her sentence the night before, He made clear thathe planned to execute sentence in violation of the law, which is prohibited by the judicial code of conduct. twas alsa revealed during trial proceedings that Judge Dinkelacker’s daughter Leah practiced before Judge Hunter as an assistant prosecutor in Juvenite Court. Leah works for Prosecutor joe Deters, whose office initiated the original complaints against judge Hunter that Jed to her indictments. Judge Hunter was accused of nepotism, regarding her brother who was hired five years prior to her election. Although she was nota public official when her brother was hired, itis my opinion that Judge Dinkelacker is determined to incarcerate her for securing a public contract, which requices an official to obtain a public contract for a family member. He is clearly violating the judicial cade of conduct regarding nepotism by presiding aver her case when his daughter has a direct interest in the outcome, as the employee of the office and employer that brought the charges against Judge Hunter. It isalso concerning that he received campaign contributions from her accuser, joe Deters. ‘The judicial cade of conduct requires a judge to-avoid the appearance of impropriety, which he blatantly failed to do. | attended Judge Hunter's trials. Multiple cases that Judge Hunter decided asa Judge, that were overturned by Judge Dinkelacker as an appellate judge were used as evidence ‘against her at trial, making him a witness in her case. Hx. A He then presided over the same case on retrial, when he should have disqualified himself. The code af ethics prohibits 2 Judge from presiding over a case when he was involved in itas a judge and/or witness. See Canon 2; Rule 2.11 (A) (2), (3) and (7}(c)(d). Judge Dinkelacker held Judge Hunter in contempt as Juvenile Court judge for preventing the media from publishing the names and faces of children in her eourtroorn, which ‘was specifically prohibited by the Hamilton County Local Rules of Court. He held her in contempt for following the letter of the law and the Ohio Rules of Superintendence, which were clearly cited in judge ttunter’s rulings regarding the media, | read all of her court orders. Judge Hunter was held in contempt without ever allowing her an opportunity to defend her rulings His eantempt order was made more disturbing by the fact that Judge Dinkelacker’s order only stated to allow the media in her courtroom and she complied immediately with that order. Judge Hunter was then held in contempt for following the local males which precluded the publishing of the children's identity, and which the order never instructed her to lift. as it would hhave eaused het to violate the law. Judge Hunter was held in contempt for following the laves as written in the Hamilton County Juvenile Rules of Court, which were followed before Judge Hunter tooksthe bench and after she was suspended. judge Hunter was never allowed to defend herself, as she was denied indepenclent counsel and forced to accept the representation of prosecutor Deters who publicly oppased ker electinn and was still representing the Board of Eleetions against her at the time of the contempt. She repeatedly requested independent counsel, hut was denied fair and impartial representation, which was widely discussed in the media and on public radio. By presiding over Judge Hunter's trial, itenabled Judge Dinkelacker to cover up his harassment ofJudge Patrick Dinkelacker Complaint 2 April 12, 2017 Judge Hunter watclied several high profile cases in Hamilton County and every Judge set their own rales for broadcasting. Judge |!uater was the only judge penalized for following the law. ‘Subsequently, Judge Dinkelacker was elected to the Common Pleas Court, then proceeded to preside over her criminal trial, where evidence of his rulings agsinst her as Appellate Judge were used against her at trial to allege she was a renegacle judge, although her rulings were upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court leading to a change in Ohialaw. witnessed firsthand Judge Hunter's lawyer presenting evidence that Patrick Dinkelacker backdated a document in judge Hunter's case. The document was dated and signed by Judge Dinkelaeker before the scheduled hearing, The hearing was September 4, but his signed document is September 3. xB. When her lawyers presented it during a Motion to Dismiss her charges of backdating a document, he denied the motion and blamed his staff. He did the exact same thing he ‘was willing to allow Judge Hunter to be criminally charged for, even'after the javenile Court staff testified they prepared her judicial entries, not judge Hunter. Disturbingly, Judge Dinkelacker has a history of falsifying court documents. In an unrelated case, judge Dinkelacker signed and dated a document stating that a prisoner had appeared in his courtroom for sentencing when in fact the prison records clearly showed the individual was incarcerated on the date of sentencing. His attorney appealed the sentencing and the case was eventually remanded back to common pleas court. (see case #C020503) His actions were a clear violation of law and ethics, but he was never charged with erimes, nor held ethically accountable for filing false sentencing documents, although the Ohio Supreme Court was aware af his malfeasances, Judge Dinkelacker aso falsified official court records when the media widely reported that Judge Hunter had retained new counsel. The attorney's name was entered of record in each case on his docket, although he had never entered an appearance, she didn’t know him and it was false_1 personally contacted WCPO and asked why they were reporting false information regarding Judge Hunter, They alleged that taey received the information from the court. The information was entered into the clerk of court website and was captured by the media in a screenshot. Bx. C. After my inquiry, the records disappeared from the website and the clerk of court denied their existence, Ex D. The problein is that the media had already provided me with the sereenshot and the docket information. [t could have only originated in Judge Dinkelacker’s courtroom. The fact that those docket sheets were destrayed after they were captured by the media and sent to me, unbeknownst to them, was dishonest. The code of conduct prohibits dishonesty by a Judge J also witnessed Judge Hunter being arrested in Judge Diakelacker’s courtroom immediately after he reissued and signed an OR bond. judge Dinkelacker knew that it was a violation of law and her civil rights to arrest her, in my observation, for the sole purpose of public humiliation, when it ‘was stated on the record that no warrant existed for her arrest and she had already been processed for the exact same charge. | personally called the Justice Center and was told that persons could only be arrested after a warrant was issued. There was no warrant for Judge Hunter. Sle was free on OR, but Judge Dinkelacker allowed her to be handcuffed and taken from his courtroom, in viclation of the OR bond he had just reissued her, in violation of his ethical and legal duties. Judge Dinkelacker repestedly abused his power in what publicly appears to be a personal vendetta Itis clear that not only does Judge Patrick Dinkelacker have dirty hands while exerting the power and influence of his affice over a peer judge: he has violated numeraus ethics and laws anel should be brought up on ethical and criminal charges for violating those ethics and laws while exerting his authority over judge Hunter for the same conduct that was alleged against her. urge the Supreme Court to do a thorough investigation of each and every allegation in this complaint.IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE EX REL. THE CINCINNATI CASE NO. C-30183, ENQUIRER, Petitioner, ENTRY OF CONTEMPT. ‘THE HONORABLE TRACIE M. HUNTER, Respondent. Per Curiam. ‘This matter came before the Court on the motion of petitioner, The Cineinnati Enquirer, urging this Court to find respondent the Honorable Tracie M. Hunter, 2 Jndge of the Hamilton County Juvenile Cout, in contempt of this Court's March 29, 2015, Alternative Writ. Judge Hunter presides over delinquency proceedings brought against six juveniles for the severe beating of a North College Hill man, including a dispositional hearing on June 24, 2033. At that hearing, Judge Hunter imposed conditions of access upon The Enquirer. The newspaper believed those conditions to be in violation of our Alternative Writ, which stayed Judge Hunter's prior orders imposing 2 name-publication restriction and denying The Enquirer access to the proceedings om that bass,OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS. On July 22, 2013, Judge Hunter appeared in this Court with statutory counsel, Christian J. Schaefer and James W. Harper, for a hearing on The Enquirer's contempt motion. The Enquirer was represented by its counsel, John C. Greiner and Darren Ford. In addition to the papers already filed in this original action, the parties filed a joint Submission of Bvidence composed of a certified copy of Judge Hunter's June 24, 2013, entry and a transcript of the proceedings held that day in Juvenile ease number 12-7366. At the hearing, the parties offered argument on the motion but declined the opportunity to produce additional evidence, RC, 2705.02(A} provides that a person guilty of the disobedience of, or cesistance to, “a lawful writ, process, order, rule, judgment, or command of a court” ‘may be punished for contempt. court's contempt power is employed to ensure the effective administration of justice, tosoeure the dignity of the court, and to affirm the supremacy of the law. See Cramer v. Petrie, 70 Ohio St.gd 251, 193, 637 N.E.2d 882 (2994). A civil-contempt sanction is imposed to coerce a party in violation of the court's orders—the contemnor—to comply and to remedy the harm caused to other parties by its disobedience, See Brown v. Executive 2000, Inc., 64 Ohio St2d 250, 258, 416 N.u2d 610 (1980); see also ConiTer, Inc. v. Consol. Technologies, inc., 40 Ohio App 3d 94, 531 N-E.2d 1983 (ast Dist. 2088). A finding of eivil contempt requires elear and convincing evidence of the contemnor’s disobedience. See Brown at 253. Proof of purposeful, willful, or intentional violation of a court's order is not a prerequisite to a finding of civil contempt. See Pugh v. Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136, 140, 472 N.B.ed 1085 (1984). The fact that a conteranor acted innocemtly and not in intentional disregard of a court's order is not a defense to a charge of civil contempt See Windham Bank v.OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Tomasrcayk, 27 Ohio St2d 55, 271 N.E.2d 81g (197), at paragraph three of the syllabus. On Mareh 15, 2013, Judge Hunter journalized an entry revoking The Enquirer's permission to broadcast, televise, photograph, or record courtroom proceedings in case number 12-7366. As Judge Hunter stated in the entry, the permission had been revoked based upon The Enquirer's violation of her September 17, 2012, onder prohibiting the media from publishing the names ofthe juveniles and their parents “for all current and future proceedings regarding this mattes.* Pursuant to the March 15, 2023, entey, Judge Hunter or her court personnel Genied Enquirer reporter Jennifer Baker entry into the courtroom on March 18 and March 25, 2013. On March 18, Baker was first instructed to wait outside Judge Hunter's sixth-floor courtroom but then was told by the court bailiff to wait in the first-floor lobby while the court proceedings were under way. Other representatives of the media ware admitted tothe court proceedings. In response to Judge Hunter's actions, The Enquirer sought relief in this Court ftom her order imposing a name-publication restriction and denying The Enquirer secess tothe juvenile proceedings on that basis. On March 29, 2023, this Court journalized an Entry Granting Altemative Writ of Prohibition and Establishing Time. The Altemative Writ ordered Judge Hunter “to stay enforcement of the documents dated Marci 15, 2013 and March 25, 2018. revoking The Cincinnati Enquirer's permission to broadeast, televise, photograph, or record courtroom proceedings. Representatives of The Enquirer shall be permitted inthe courtroum.” The Alternative Writ stayed enforcement of the name-publication stestriction that was the basis of Juege Hunter's March 15 entry denying The EnquirerOHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS. access to her courtroom. Judge Hunter was personally served with a copy of the Alternative Writ on March 29, 2013. On June 24, 20:6, Judge Hunter held a dispositional hearing in case number 12-7966. At the beginning of the hearing, Judge Hunter announced that she had Journalized an entry granting The Enquirer's application to attend the hearing. The Judge read the entry aloud in open court. The pertinent parts of the entry are provided as fellows: ‘his applicant was previously barred from attending all future proceedings in this matter after violating this Court's conditions in a previous hearing, whereby this Court granted permission to broadeast. This Entry neither alters nor amends this Court's previous Orders or this Court's pending or future Orders, which shall be ‘decided upon proper Motion to this Court on a ease by ease basis. ‘The Court, upon consideration of the abowe request, pursuant ‘only to the First District Cour’s Order, while a lawsuit litigating these issues, is pending, hereby grants its authorisation to broadcast, televise, photograph, or otherwise record judicial proceedings in the above captioned matter, subject to the following conditions: Names of the Defendants and their parents are barred from Publication or broadcast for all current and future proceedings ‘regarding this matterOHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 1 media applicant violates: this order, the «Judge may revoke violator(s) permission to broadeast, videotape, photograph, or record all future courtroom proceedings; and additionally may tke any other actions available under law. ‘Thus, despite acknowledging this Court's order, Judge Hunter nonetheless placed of record an entry that she maintained “neither altes(ed] nor amendfed] this Court's previous Orders" Judge Hunter's entry again imposed the name-publication restriction as a eondition af access in violation of our Alternative Writ staying, or suspending the effect of, the Mareh 13 entry, and ordering that The Enquirer be admitted to the juvenile proceedings. When The Enquirer's cottnsel attempted to object to-the revived publication restriction, Judge Hunter refased to hear the objection as zeflected in the transcript of the hearing: MR.{GREINER]: Your Honor— THECOURT: —* * * Please do not interrupt my court Proceeding. MR.[GREINER]: I beliove you gave the opportunity to object. THECOURT: — 'msory? MR [GREINER]: 1 thought you said if there was an objection, as you read the entry. I believe you suid if any party objects, there would be a closure hearing to the conditions. ©OUIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS —_______SHI@ FIRST DISTRICTCOURTOFAPPEALS THECOURT: No, there will be a closure hearing to objecting to media access, But I advise you te sit down or you are going to be — thank yeu. ‘An onder issued by 2 court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and the is reversed by orderly and proper eneon must be obtyed by the parties until Proceedings. See Bd. Of Edn. Of Hamilton Gfty School Dist. v. Hamilton Classroom Teachers Assa., 5 Ohio App.3d 51, 53. 449 N.E.2d 26 (12th Dist.1989), citing United ‘States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 US. 258, 302-303, 67 S.Ct. 67, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947); see also Rowell v. Smith. 133 Ohio St.g 288, 2012-Ohio-4313, 978 N-E.2d 146, 1 30 (‘a party must not be permitled to ignore a court’s order, even when she disagrees with it"). Judge Hunter isa party to this original action, Her stamus as 4 judicial officer does not exempt her from compliance with this Court's orders. ‘Thus the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that by journalizing the Tune 24, 2013, entry Judge Hunter disobeyed this Court's Mereh 29, 2013, Alternative Writ. Jadge Hunter is in civ contempt ofthis Court's Writ To purge her contempt, Judge Hunter must journalize an entry vacating her June 24, 201, entry forthwith, and provide this Court with a certified copy of that entry nolater than 4:00 pm, July25, 2013 tis so Ordered. Hu preRANpT, Pala CuNMINGHAM and DINKELACKER, JJ Tathe clerk: Enter upon the journg JL 23 180 per order of the court‘yertopace Weta Pet Subject: FY: Tracie Hunter In Court tomorrow From: "Bongiome, Alex” Date: Tue, Sep08, 2015 11:04 am Jo: “eecii@oecilthomas.com” Attach: image00t.png, ease Defendant: Count: Count: Count: Count: Count: Count: case Plaintif: Defendant: Count: 5 2ap0120 STATEOF OHO. HUNTERTRACE, 1 Vielation Description: ‘Next Action: a ‘Section Gode: Violation Description: Next Action: _ ‘Section Code: Violation Description: Moxt Action: 5 ‘Section Code: Violation Description: ‘Next Action: 6 ‘Section Gode: Violation Description: Newt Action: ? Section Code: Violation Description: Next Action: 8 ‘Section Code: STATEOFOHO —_Afforney for Plaintif: HUNTERIRACE Attorney for Defendant: 1 ‘Section Code: \Violstion Description: Next Action: Time: Attorney for Plsitf: ‘Attorney for Defenciant: Section Code? Violation Descriptio sero ccuroserr ee per rl gk SK]INGOXCT Past 100 cROsnELLFSCOTIE ELLSWORTHWALKESR 2821-12A210RCN ‘TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE SURV TRL, 2a1S-SIAZIOREN FORGERY ARO TRIAL 2e01-12ADIORCN ‘TAMBERING WITH EVIDENCE JURY TAAL 2O13-StAQIORCN FORGERY AURAL 2921-A2A OREN [HAVING AN UNLAWRUL INTEREST NA PUBLIC CONTRACT (ARV TRAL 2821-428 OREN HAVING AN UNCAWFLL INTEREST NA PUBLIC CONTRACT JURY TRIAL, 2921-410 2IO8GN TET NOFA AUR TRIAL 2921-4 1AZIORCN TET NOME eer TRAL, 1000 SHIVERDECERBERLYND LLSWORTHIWLKESR 2213: 21B21ORCN JASUSEOF CREDIT CARDS AUR TAL +000 SEVERDECERIERLYND BLLSWORTHIIML KES 0 27BUORC MSUSE OF GEES CARDSTRACY WINKLER HAMILTON GOUNTY CLERK OF COURTS Marke 6, Waters, Bag, Administrator amiton County Courtnenss 1000 tain Street, Roorn 275 Cincineas, Cho 4520 sid Stesag Fax 512-966-5060 September 9, 2015 Mr. Cecil Thomas National Action Network Greater Cincinnati Chapter 515 Clinton Springs Ave. Cincinnati, Ghio 45217 Rei Your request for court records Dear Mr. Thomas: 10 Be ceived your September 9, 2015, quest for court records in criminal cage nog, deny Bi00189; and 8150127. Specifically you have requested a copy of vy entry SEEgYnG attomoy Wilkes Eteworth as the new counsel of recordin those canes’ Ne voc record exists. {have also asked our technology staf! to check to see if any entry was made in error and Subsequently deleted. Again, no such record oxiste. Please contact me if you need any additional information, Sincerely, Adminstrator Mewnn EnclosuresSTATEMENT OF THE FACES (1) Oh Septenber 10, 1999, the Petitioner was convicted of one count of Trafficking 1 for Sole with 2 one-year gun specification, in cocatitie, one count of Ereparation of Coes: ‘and four counts of Having Weapons While Under Disabi (2) On Septenber 16, 1999, the Petitioner was Sentenced on all counts, receiving eight years for Count one of B99)3656~Irafficking in Cocaine; five years on Count 1 o£ B9903995-Praparation of Cocaine for Sale plus one year for the gun specification, mergex. of Count 2 on 89903995 with Count } one year on Count 3+-Having Weapons While under Disability; (2) year on Count S-Having Weapons’ While Under Disability; and one year in Count 6-Having Weapons While Under Disability. All counts in both eases vere run consecutively to one another for a total of 18 years. (3) On January 22, 2001, the Petitioner filed an Application To Reopen Appeal. pursuant to App. R. 26(8) to which this Court granted on Septenber 14, 2001. (4) Oa Mazch 13, 2002, this. Court reversed the Judgnent of the. trial court and remanded the case for fhicther proceedings (5) On March 23, 2002, the Respondent entered an Order (Judgement Entry:Sentencing} which is fraudulent in form and substance. ‘The Judgment Entery entered by the Respondent appears to have conveyed the Petitioner to the Trial Court for his hearing but in fact the Petitioner was never conveyed to tyig> trial court for any proceeding (2){6} The March 25, 2002, Order entered by the Respondent further stated that the Petitioner was in open court, with counsel, and that the Respondent addressed the Petitioner personally and asked the Petitioner if he wished to make a statenent in his behalf, or present any information in mitigation of punishnent. (7) Petitioner submits that he was never conveyed to the trial court on March 25, 2002, for resentencing and at no time tas he represented by counsel in open court on March 25, 2002. (8) Petitioner suimits that the Respondent failed to follow the mandate-of Auticle I, Section L¢ of the Ohio Constitution, Ohio’ Criminal Rule 43 (A), by failing to convey the Petitioner to open court for his hearing and that the Respondents failure to do so denied the Patitioner hie right to Due Process of law and that the Judguent Ehtcy entered by the Respondent should be vacated and a new Rearing ordered by this Court. ‘LAW AND. ARGOMENT Ohio Revised Code 2731.01 provides: Mandamus is awit, isued in the vane of the State to an inferior tribunal, a corporation, boatd or person, comanding.the performance of an act wich the Law specifically enjoins as a duty reculting fron an office, trust, or station. In order to establisha right. to writ of mandams, the Petitioner mist denonstrete, a clear legal right to the relief prayed for that the respondent is under'a clear legal duty to perform requested act; and that the petitioner has no plain and adequate remedy in ordinary course of Lav. State ex rel. Karmasu v. Tate (1992), 33 Ohio App. 34199, 614 NB. 2d 827. @‘Ghia Criminal Rule 43 (4) provides in pertinent part: ‘That the defendant shall be present at the arraginnent and avery stage of the trial, including the impanelling of tne jury, return of the verdict, and the imposition of sentence. It has long been held that. Criminal Rule 43 (A) required that the Relator be present at every stage of the proceeding. This aandate, applicable throught Article T, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution through the Fourtdenth Ailendhen't. of the United States Constitution, applies where the Relators sentence is vacated and a new sentence is imposed.’ State v. Grum,.No. 61803 (8th Dist Ct App, Cuyahoga, 3-16-93); Colimbus v. Rowland (1961), 2 Ohio Apps 34.164, 440 NE. 2d 1365; State v. Walton (1990), 66 Onio App: 3d 243, 563 N.E.-24 1106; Cleveland v. Clemons (1993), 90 Ohio App. 3d 212, 628 N.E. 2d 141. Thus, any modified sentence stated in the Judghent Entry ie ineffective and invalid. State v. Bell (1990), 70 Ohio App. 34 765, 592 N.E. 24 848. In the case at bar the Rélator was convicted on Septenber 10, 1999. Relator was sentenced on Septesber 16, 1999 by the Respondent. On March 13, 2002, this Court, per entry, reversed the Respondents Judguent Batry and reminded the case to the Respondent for further proceedings. On March 25, 2002, the Respondent, per entry, resentenced the Relator without the Relators presence in open court as mandated under Article 1, Section 10 of the chic Constitution ‘and Criminal Rule 43. (a). However, the Respondent submitted a purported document which was clearly frawhilent in-forti. For example, the Judguent Entry. states that the Relator was in open court, with counsel, on the date of March 25, 2002, and that the Respondent personally addressed the Relator and asked the Relator if he wished to make a statement on his behalf of mitigation of punistment. (See Exhibit 4). It is hard to fathom that the Respondent, a judicial officer, would attempt to produce such a fraudulent document knowing full well that the Relator had never been conveyed fron the Ross Correctional Institution to appear at hie sentencing hearing. Respondent had a clear legal duty to ensure the Relators" presence upon this Courts reversal of the Respondents Judgnent Fatty and yet fafled to do so: Clearly-2hts was alli (1939), 435 Ohio St. 87, 19 N.E. 2d 645 prejudicial erzor. State v. a)‘THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDENCS AND STATE SUGH ON THE REQORD IN AOGORDANGE WETH R.C. 292914. In submitting the Judgment Entry by the Respondent, the Respondent failed to follow.the mandate of Revised Code 2929.1% by failing to state on the record the trial courts reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. Thus, the Respondents failure to state on. the record its teasons for imposition of euch sentence is clearly. error and such entry must be vacated. State vi Bolton ((2001), 143 Ohio App. 34 185, 757 W.Be 2d B41. In the case at bar, the Respondént had a clear legal duty to perform the requested actethat the Relator be conveyed to the trial court for his hearing when this Court revereed the teial courts judgnont entry. Not only did the Respondent violate the Relators right to Due Process of Law by failing to convey the Relator to the trial sourt forhis hearing, the Respondent submitted a fraudulent document in an attempt to show that the relator had in fact been conveyed to the trial court far his hearing. Not only does the Relator have a clear] leg=1 right tobe conveyed to the trial court for his hearing, the Relator has no adequate renedy at law by witich to be conveyed “to his hearing without a weit of mandamus. ‘THE RESPONDENT COMMITTED PREJUDICLAL ERROR BY FAQLING TO FOLLOW THE MANDATE OF CRIM. R. 32 (A)G), REQUIRING REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT EXERT Gnio Griminal Rule 32 (4)(1) provides that sentence shall be inposed without un- necessary delay. The Rule also mandates the trial court to afford counsel. an opportunity to apeak on'behalf of the defendant and shall also address the defendant - personally and sk the defendant if he or she wishes to make a statement in his ot her ‘own behalf or present any information in mitigation of punishment. If the Respondent’ fa: @).to invite:the defendant to speak in his own bebal£, such failure :rquires the case to be remanded to the trial court. United States v. Edgecomb (C.A. 6 Ohio), (199), 910 F.2d 1309, Jnl the present case. the Respondent comitted prejueicial error by failing to convey the Relator to the hearing after reversal ty this Court. Not only did the Respondent fail to convey the Relator to his hearing, such failure was clearly prejudicial and plain error requiring reversal and a new hearing be held. United States wv. Edgeconh, supra. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, upon the foregoing the Relator moves this Court for a Writ of Mendanus in the interest of justice: Respectfully Subsi tted < Bie geee P.O. Box 7010 Ross Correctional Inst. Chillicothe, OH 45601 (6)RELIEF REQUESTED (1) Relator request this Court to vacate Respondents Judgnent Entry on Narch 25, 2002, and order a new hearing. (2). Relator request this Court to Enter an Order to convey the Relator to the trial court for his new hearing. (3) Relator Request this Court to appoint another trial judge to preside over said hearing due to Respondents false documents wherein Respondent attempted to show that the relator was conveyed fo the trial court for Ais hearing-which is clearly biased and-prejudiced against the Relator. Respectfully Submitted 2.0. Box 7010 Ross Correctional Inst. GhilLicothe, 0H 45601 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing PETETION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. was secved upon the Respondent om this _“JS day of gegesf" 200 wDines of oy. ine: ay poverty, Lam auable to pay the $ 100 pursuant to th in ay pre DAWN M, HALE NOTARY PUBLIGx { 2 * “ THESTATE OF onto, Haat TON COENTY KOT COURT OF COMMON FLEAS L Rod. MRE ort [eee ost Nov Rspages eel STATE OF OHIO JUDGMENT ENTRY: SENTENCE: (A) VS. INCARCERATION EARL BUCKNER Defendant wes present ia open Count with Counsel RIGHARD J GOLDBERG on 25th day of March 2002 for sentence “The court informed the defendant that as thé defendant well knew, after defendant entering a plea of not guilty and _ after trial by jury, the defendant has been found guilty of the offense(s) of count I: PREP OF COCAINE FOR SALE WISP, 29 count 2: POSSESSION OF COCAINE WISPECS. COUNT A count 3: HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY, 292; count 4: HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY, 17 COUNT a3 count 5: HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY, 2 count #3 souat fx HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY, 292313AVORCN-FS, MERGED WIT COUNT #S sTOREN FS ALMORCN ES, MERGED WITH |AVOREN TS ASIORCNE MERGED WITH ASAVORGN FS, MERGED WITH “The Court afforded defendant's counsel an apportunity to speak on behatf of the defendant. The Court addressed the defendant personally and asked if the defendant wished to make a statement in the dofendant’s behalf, or pcesent any information in smidlgation of punishment. Defendant is sentenced to be imprisoned as follows: count 1: CONFINEMENT: 5 ¥rs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CONBINEMENT ON SPECIFICATION: 1 Yes DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ‘THIS SENTENCE IS TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY AND PRIOR TO THE SENTENCE IN ‘THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE IN COUNT #1. count 3: CONFINEAIENT: 1 ¥rs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS: THE SENTENCES IN COUNTS #1 AND #3 ARE TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY TO EACH OTHER AND TO THE SPECIFICATION IN COUNT #1. (TOTAL SEVEN (7) YEARS). Sort oe 8 cmon, Foren case tac or06559 TESTED EaQ THE STATE OF OHIO, HAMILTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS date: 03/25/2002 ae bate 18 4h. hile.) ao Tage OATRICET DNRRLACK fain, fos Ba. Te olor sak NO; 89903995 STATE OF OHIO. JUDGMENT ENTRY: SENTENCE: ve INCARCERATION EARL BUCKNER : AS A FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT, THIS SENTENCE IS TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IN CASE NUMBER 9902656 AND CONSECUTIVELY TO THE PRIOR PRISON SENTENCE. DEFENDANT GIVEN A FIVE (5) YEAR DRIVING SUSPENSION COMMENCING SEPTEMBER 16, 1999, AS PART OF THE SENTENCE IN THIS CASE, THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THE POST RELEASE CONTROL SUPERVISIONS OF R.C. 2967.28. asene Cane se nnausnn Pond EE osoet @ : a ss KVTIOD OK FD POON HL OY FY do ue Dirwreetry PMO 20-648 U9 ayo Sica ieee) HOYULIT) ee, LSSYS MaRS Pave weak se rae anus os tabs kena than sacra by a bay 344, AB Bi gia omy oe fen? Hay L to LMBODUIY Lpray Le sym gy ADLEGE EE :S a IN THE QOURT OF AFFEALS Fitg D3ITHSO8 AnaL-TON COUNT, CeITO Cour oF arin AUG 0-7 2002 State ex cel. Earl Buckner ) JAMES casseey Relator, ) aac aU ) > case NO. oe = : 020503 Hon. Patrick Dinkelacker, ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMLIS Susge, Court of Connon ; Pleas, Hamilton County, a Ohio. ) Cr ‘Respondent. ) rm c eta ch le Now comes Relator, Earl Buckner, Pro~se, pursuant to Revised Code § 2731.01, and moves this Honorable Court for a Writ of Mandams compelling the Respondent to act in accordance with this Courts Order ontered. on Narch 1,. 2002. relator submits that the Respondent is under a clear lagal duty to act in sceordance with this Courts order and that Mandamus will igsue in that the Vemerandun In Support is attached. |COMP, PARTIES, SUEMONS CERT MAIL (_ ) SHERIFF () NONE (WAVE: ( ) PROCESS SERVER ne! SEQURITY FOR COST DEPOSITED BY _ FIUNG CODE, Relator bas no adequate remedy at law. A Respectfully Submitved Gee ist a Belair Posen PO. Box 10 Oe Toss Correctional Inst. Chillicothe, O# 45601Bea ee & & 823 Be be ‘TUE DEFENDANT IS TO PAY PUBLIC DEFENDER ATTORNEY FEES. THE DEFENDANT 1S TO PAYA FINE OF $10,000.00. “"RE-SENTENCE™* "CORRECTED" "NUNC PRO TUNC ‘onr2ar2010"" SENTENCED COUNT 1. PREP OF COCAINE FOR SALE WISPEC CONFINEMENT: 5 YRS ‘aporo OEPARTHENT OF CORRECTIONS DRIVER'S LIGENSE SUSPENSION, 8 YRS CONFINEMENT ON SPECIFICATION: 4 YRS TO BU SERVED CONSECUTIVELY AND PRIOR FO THE SENTENGE IMPOSED IN UNDERLYING-OFFENSE IN COUNT. ryanoro SENTENCED COUNT 3: HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY CONRNEMENT: 1 YRS DEPARTMENT OF GORREGTIONS DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION: § YRS {1052010 NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED NO.C1005S8 COPY SENT TO HAMILTON COUNTY PROSECUTOR, JUDENENT ENTRY: SENTENCE: INCARCERATION COUNT 6215 MERGED WITH GOUNT #1 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SENTENCING COUNTS#4, 35, AND #6 ARE MERGED WITH COUNT 1 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SENTENGING. THE SENTENCES ML COUNTS #1 AND #3 ARE TO [BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY TO EACH OTHER. THIS SENTENGE IS TO BE SERVED ‘CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE NAPOSCD IN CASE B9903656.A. THE TOTAL 4014/2010 AGGREGATE SENTENCE IS FF TEEN (15) YEARS IM THE OFPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. Feit DEFENDANT IS TO RECEIVE CREDIT FOR FOUR THOUSAND GNE HUNDRED THIRTY Owe (4,151) OAYS ME SERVED, THE DEFENDANT IS TO MAKE RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $81.00 FOR LAB FEE. THE OEFENOANT 15.70 PAV THE COURT COSTS, THE BEFENDANT IS TO PAY PUBLIC DEFENDER ATTORNEY FEES. THE DEFENDANTS TOPAY [AMANDATORY FINE OF $10,600.00. **RE-SENTENCE™™ SENTENCED COUNT J. PREP OF COCAINE FOR SALEWISPEG CONFINEMENT: 5 YRS. squunoyo DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DRIVERS LICENSE SUSPENSION: 5 YRS CONFINEMENT (ON SPECIFICATION: 1-YRS TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY AND PRIOR TO THE ‘SENTENCE IMPOSED IN UNDERLYING OFFENSE IN COUNT #1, souoro SENTENCED COUNT 2: HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY CONFINEMENT: 4 YRS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION: § YRS ‘912172010 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 9821/2010 DEFENDANT'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM. 19. DESIGNATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEY. PUDLIC DEFENDER ASSIGNED. ASSESS PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE. 8222010 ENTRY ORDERING RETURN OF INMATE riven JUOGMENT ENTRY VACATING SENTENCE AND REMANDING TO TRIAL COURT (@09000554 ‘Boso3s05) (¢ 0900859 “JUDGMENT ENTRY: SENTENCE: INCARCERATION THE SENTENGES IN CUNTS #1 AND #3 [BRE TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY TO EACH OTHER AND TO THE SPECIFICATION IN spreaeag COUNT #1 FORA TOTAL OF SEVEN (7) VEARS. DEFENDANT GVENAFIVE (5) EAR. DRIVING SUSPENSION COMMENCING SEPTEMBER 16, 1992, ““RESENTENCING, POST RELEASE CONTROL SANCTIONS. 042572002. "™RESENTENCING, POST RELEASE CONTROL SANCTIONS, oxrs/z002 [SENTENCED COUNT 4. PREP OF COCAINE FOR SALE WISPEC CONFINEMENT: 5. YRS sianamedo DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CONENEMENT ON SPECIFICATION. 1 ¥RS TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY AND PRIOR TO THE SENTENGE MPOSED IN UNDERLYING OFFENSE IN COUNT". tamayzoug SENTENCED COUNT 3: HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY CONFINEMENT: 1 YRS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. ‘ivteraos COURT OF APPEALS OF HAMILTON COUNTY CASE NO. Gos0658 TRANGGRUPT OF DOCKET 1972008 vio JOURNAL ENTRIES FILED: 1162232000 CLERKS TRANSCRIPT FEE FOR AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT - FILED {ONG@O09 TRANSCRIPT OF PROGEEDINGS COBDS 9726/2009 ENTRY APPROVING COUNSEL FEES $270 ezg9a NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED NO. COGOKEE COPY SENT TO HAMILTON COUNTY 2009 pROSFEUTOR ‘38/2000 ENTRY APPOINTING COUNSEL ‘86/2009 ENTRY OF CONTINUANCE 9309 {2280008 JUDGE ASSIGNED CASE ASSIGNED TO LUEBBERSWODYAA PRIMARY, {71172009 ENTRY ORDERING RETURN OF INMATE. ‘odee OEFENDANTS RESENTENCING MEMORANDUMa a a 2 ESPEES F FESESERROEAS &EEEHE wh & a 26 15 uae 298 “reanogg JUDGMENT ENTRY AND DECISION VACATING SENTENCES AND RENANDING TO TRIAL ‘CQURT {B9en0956A & BOOTAIEE)(C-O800ES4) sanmacon COURT-OF APPEALS OF HAMILTON COUNTY CASE NO, CD600684 TRANSCRIPT OF DOCKET AND JOURNAL ENTIRES FILED a/pone NOTICE CF APPEAL FILED AKD MOTION FOR DELAYED APPEAL NO, CosoO5E4 COPY SENT "008 79 HANLTON COUNTY PROSECUTOR 502008 ENTRY OVERRULING NOTION TO CORRECT AVOID SENTENCE trapogg MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE NOTION 70 CORRECT A YOHO SENTENCE ‘ariapoar MOTION TO CORRECT A VOID SENTENCE BASED UPON THE COURTS DISREGARD OF & STATUTORY SENTENCING REQUIREMENTS sqrygoor MOTION TO CORRECT A VOID SENTENCE BASED UPON THE COURTS DISREGARD OF A STATUTORY SENTENCING REQUIREMENTS, ENTRY OF DISMISSAL COTO143 “COPIES SENT TO DOG AND DEFENDANT ON OBIDAI07; eeazoor ENT 14902007 COURT OF APPEALS OF HAMILTON COUNTY CASE NO. CoTO143 ‘apanco? NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED NO. CTT0149 COPY SENT TO HAMILTON COUNTY PROSECUTOR “Y2q2007 ENTRY DENYING: MOTION TO CORRECT A VOW SENTENCE, “4125/2007 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CORRECT A VOID SENTENCE. ‘H72007 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. “WT2007 PRAECIPE FOR SERVICE BY CERTIFIED MAIL inrmaor NOTION TO CORRECT A VOD SENTENCE ORDER IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO ORG. #2725.01 {10/14/2005 ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION TO CONSCUDATE CASES 41032008. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO: CONSOLIDATE SENTENCES (ORAL HEARING REQUESTED) {72005 ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION GF SENTENGE {62272005 MOTION TO CORRECT A VOID SENTENCE ORDER “112212004 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO: CONSOLIDATE SENTENCES ‘6152004 ENTRY OVERRULING JUDICIAL RELEASE (611472008. MOTION FOR JUDICIAL RELEASE PURSUANT TO O.R.G. 2529.20 (NEARING REQUESTED) 17902003. JUDGMENT ENTRY AFFIRMING BUT MODIFIED JUDGMENT C-090872 IMAGES 8 07/90/2003 “12472003. COURT OF APPEALS OF HAMILTON COUNTY CASE NO. C020672 4$/1472003._ AGREED STATEMENT AS TO THE RECORD ON APPEAL (W200 AGREED STATEMENT AS TO THE RECORD ON APPEAL. 1217912092 DOGKET STATEMENT FILED. swnaroaa NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED NO. C0208%2 COPY SENT TO HAMILTON COUNTY PROSECUTOR eusmano2. ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION TO CONVEY {472002 MOTION TO CONEY so1re002 ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE SENTENCES, saG/2002 DEFENDANT'S NOTION TO CONSOLIDATE SENTENCES {42812002 MOTION TO RETURN FOR SENTENCING, 42872002 ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION TO RETURN FOR SENTENCING 372512002 MERGED WrTH COUNT JUDGMENT ENTRY: SENTENCE: INCARCERATION THE SENTENCES IN COUNTS #1 AND #3 ARE TO OF St Rive CONSECUTIVELY TO EACH OTHER AND TO THE SPECIFICATION IN, ‘COUNT #1 (TOTAL SEVEN (7) YEARS) AS A FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT, THIS -veseour SENTENCES TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENGE INCASE NUMBER '35902586 AND CONSECUTIVELY TO THE PRIOR PRISON SENTENCE. DEFENDANT GIVEN A FIVE (5) YEAR ORIVING SUSPENSION COMMENCING SEPTEMBER 16, 1999. AS PART OF THE SENTENCE IN THIS CASE, THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THE POST RELEASE CONTROL SUPERVISIONS OF R.C. 2957-28, ™* NUNC PRO FUNC 9720/1009) 292002. JUOGMENT ENTRY AFFIRMING JUDGMENT REVERSING JUDGMENT AND REMANDING TOBES ae 728 180 100 “TRIAL COURT.C900870 Cas0S7t 8/1502 480 "*COPY SENT TO DOC AND DEFENDANT ON ogra, FSR 1202001 ENTRY OVERRULING NOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL {#2182001 ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT {4282001 ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION FOR RECUSAL WITH AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION jaemnao, SOPY OF ENTRY TO DENY THE MOTION FOR DELAYED APPEAL AND DISMISS CAUSE. FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF O10 ON 026/01, SGM a1-127T 182372001 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. [8212001 MOTION MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 4HQ2001 LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR ANEW TRIAL |3f142001 MOTION FOR RECUSAL WITH AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFIGATION, gpunont ENTRY FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL 8123/0001 DENY LEAVE TO APPEAL AND DISMISSES THE APPEAL ‘COPY OF ENTRY DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL AND DESMISSING APPEAL; FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. ONS/701 SCB0-2102 218212001 ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION FOR PH. TRANSCRIPT “92001 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING TRANSCRIPTS 2712001 ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION FOR GRAND JURY MINUTES 21622001 AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY 2062001 MOTION FOR GRAND JURY MINUTES “yeaa, NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED AND MOTION FOR DELAYED APPEAL NO. CoT0GQS2 COPY SENT 221200" T5 HAMILTON COUNTY PROSECUTOR airidong CERTIFICATE OF SUOGMENT FILED N HAMILTON GOUNTY AGAINST EAR BUCKNER ON 212772000 €.100013003 ‘arrp009 (HLL UNDELIVERABLE) PRECIPE FOR CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT FILED FOR COURT ‘COSTS AGAINST 2292.30 EARLBUCKNER ~_ sarerong COPY OF NOTICE OF APPEAL OF APPELLANT EARL BUGKNER: FLED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIG ON 1217100 SC 00-2192 sarareoon COPY OF NOTICE OF APPEAL OF APECLLANT EARL GUGKNER: FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ON 127800 SC 00-2182 soresro000 JUDGEMENT ENTRY AFFIRMING THE JUOGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT 1078/09 BINGE# 2 (G820879 CO90671 COPY SENT TO DOC AND DEFENDANT ON 11/30100 SF 219812000 CLERKS TRANSCRIPT FEE FOR AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT - FILED 211117000. GOMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS C2sd67 Co90070 89603656 3 VOLUMES 2111/2000 COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS C9B0570 COO0571 BSGO3E55 3H172000. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL C990671 GS90670 8993850, ‘244N2200 CLERKS TRANSCRIPT FEE FOR AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT - FILED 12/15/1999 COURT OF APPEALS OF HAMILTON COUNTY CASE NO. C980870 tr vte/t999 MOTION FOR TRANSCIUPTS TO BE PREPARED AT NO COST TO DEFENDANT FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL, ‘921/908 DOCKET STATEMENT FILED, C900670 srevsge9 NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED NO.C-290670 COPY SENT TO HAMILTON GOUNTY PROSECUTOR abarisee MERGED B 990ns3s-2 SENTENCED GOUNT 3. HAVE WIEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY CONFINEMENT 1YEAR DEPT OF ‘CORI. "= NUNC PRO TUNC 90/1899 MERGED B9903995-5 920/199 MERCED & 99039054 [SENTENCED COUNT 1: PREP OF COCAINE FOR SALE WISPE CONFINEMENT: 5 YRS eyavtges DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CONFINEMENT ON SPECIFICATION: 1 VRS THIS "SENTENCE IS TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY AND PRIOR TO THE SENTENCE INTHE ‘UNDERLYING OFFENSE IN COUNT #1." NUNC PRO TUNC "*" 70/1999 ENTRY APPOINTING APPELLATE COUNSEL. HERDERT FREEMAN ‘szu2001 sroeseooan ose 289 we 250 0 3 160 a7 ww 78 oneisse anes snsitss9 grteii9s9 anoir988 arse1999 siart968 ‘anert900 srieri999 ‘orien998 onert9s9 ‘eraiag9 riage ariaies8 ‘3/900 srianaee snaneee sn3ise98 sr01990 snon9e8 011909 sron353 ‘sr0r968 ‘Hot 000 ‘gran 998 ‘srior999 sror900 ‘eriartaoo ‘sions sirarssos oriase09 ‘seia0 igo a7risas winee8 MERGED a coogees-2 [SENTENCED Count &: HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY GONFINERENT: 1 Yes DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DEFENDANT TO PAY COURT COSTS. SENTENCED Couat 5 HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY CONFINEMENT: 1 ¥es BEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DEFENDANT TO PAY COURT COSTS, SENTENCED Count 4: HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY CONFINEMENT: 1 ¥5 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DEFENDANT TO PAY COURT COSES. SENTENCED Count 3: HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY CONFINEMENT: 1 ¥r3 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DEFENDANT TO PAY COURT COSTS, SENTENCED COUNT. PREP OF COCAINE FOR SALE WISPE CONFINEMENT: 5 ¥RS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DEFENDANT TO PAY COURT COSTS. CONFINEMENT ON SPECIFIGATION. 1 YRS SUDGMENT ENTRY, SENTENCE: INCARCERATION THE SENTENCES ON ALL COUNTS ARE TQ Be SERVED CONSECUTIVELY TO EACH GTHER AND FIREARM SPECIFICATION IN COUNT #118 TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY TO.ALL COUNTS. AS A FURTHER ORDER. (OF THIS COURT, THIS SENTENCE IS TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY TO 89002655 AND CONSECUTIVELY TO PRIOR PRISON SENTENCE. GEFENDANT GIVEN A YEAR DRIVER, UICENSE SUSPENSION, MERGED writ COUNT CTT ENTRY DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS. ENTRY DENYING: MOTION TO RECONSIDER OROER DENYING SEPARATE TRIALS: FELONY SENTENCING FINDINGS, SENTENCE DEFERRED 8 99029953 ‘SENTENCE DEFERRED & 93030054 ‘SENTENCE DEFERRED 8 93030055 SENTENCE DEFERRED 8 9902095-6 ‘CAUSE CONCLUDED SENTENCE DEFERRED UNTIL 9169 SENTENCE DEFERRED 8 90000851 SENTENCE DEFERRED B 9000595-2 JURY VERDICT OF GUILTY RAVING WEAPONS WHILE UNDER DISABILTY IN GT'8 CONVICTED By JURY 8 9903005-6 JURY VERDICT OF GUILTY PREPARATION OF COCAINE FOR SALE IN CT 1. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE DEFT 08D COnaarT THE OFFENSE IN THE VICINITY GF A JUVENILE OR THE MICINITY OF A SCHOOL, AS CHARGED IN CT 1, WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE AMOUNT OF ‘COCAINE INVGLVED AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE DID EXCEED $ GRAMS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE DEFT DID HAVE ON Of ABOUT HIS PERSON, OR UNDER HIS CONT2OL, A FIREARM WHILE COMMITTING THE OFFENSE AS GHARGED IN CT 1 (CONVIGTED BY JURY 8 #sa2990—1 ‘CONVICTED BY JURY 8 9900985-5 : JURY VERDICT OF GUILTY HAVING WEAPONS WHILE UNDER DISABILITY IN.GT 5. ‘CONVICTED BY JURY 8 gsn0s@5-4 JURY VERDICT OF GUILTY HAVING WEAPONS WHILE UNDER DISABILITY IN CT 4 ‘CONVICTED BY JURY 8 99030952. JURY VERDICT OF GUILTY HAVING WEAPONS WHILE UNDER DISABILITY INGT' ‘CONVIGTED BY JURY B 9903890-2 ‘JURY VERDICT Of GUILTY POSSESSION OF COCAINE IN CT2. WUE FURTHER FIND-THAT “THE AMGUNT OF COGAINE INVOLVED AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE WAS IN AN AMOUNT (WHICH EXCEEDED 25 GRAMS BUT DID NOT EXCFED 100 GRAMS WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE DEFT B10 HAVE ON OR ABOUT HIS PERSON, OR UNDER HIS CONTROL, A FIREARM WHILE COMMITTING THE GFFENSE AS CHARGED INCT2 ENTRY REOVOKING BOND ‘CAUSE PROGRESSED 2ND DAY, TESTIMONY ADDUCED IN PART & CONT UNTEL 8'899 ENTRY REQUESTING OFFICIAL STENOGRAFHER SURY IMPANELED AND SWORN 13 JURORS ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION TO SUPPRESS.m2 18 128 188 199 13 aZe 210 sori989 sey1999 sei999 3571998 aainese Bayto00 gee azine arari999 anerie90 a0'i999 e2ori299 arrerigas srHes9 anaries9 ariarie89 -ar1800 -srrsg80 -ar1s09 ar 809 Fresris93 7ren699 Presvi909 Fosrt399 ‘re6ti988 esarteso erso90 erzenegs enanegs eizari999 enatseo enate9o orpaiisse erates eratess eni999 onsets aniteso enniteee arnis990 erari909 esri999 era1388 CAUSE PROGRESSED IST DAY, TESTIMONY ADDUCED IN PART & CONT UNTIL 9/899 ENTRY DENYING: DEFTS HOTION TO RECONSIDER SEPARATE TRIALS (THIS WAS. ‘ORIGINALLY ENTERED UNDER THC WRONG CASE NUMBER C.V.) ENTRY DENYING: DEFT'S MOTION TO DisMISS STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY. NOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER DENYING SEPARATE TRIALS. NOTION To DISIMSS ‘SUBPOENA FOR WITNESS RETURNED AND ENDORSED VIGTORIA BOMVENS ‘SUBPOENA FOR WITNESS RETURNED AND ENDORSED DONALD CARTER DEFENDANT'S SUPPL ENENTAL DISCOVERY. ‘SUBPOENA FOR WITNESS ISSUED TO VICTORIA BOWEN DONALD GARTER ENTRY ORDERING MOTIONS DEFENDANTS DISCOVERY, CAUSE PROGRESSED 1ST DAY, TESTIMONY ADDUCED IN PART 2 CONT UNTIL 82058 CLERK CORRECTION WRONG CASE NUMBER ON ENTRY, SEE BESC2289 SFE ‘SUBPOENA FOR WITNESS ISSUED TO CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT MONON TO SUPPRESS MOTION FOR SEPERATE TRIAL ‘SUSPOENA FOR WITNESS RETURNED ANO ENDORSED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT C/O [AGENT JOHN MERCADO MONON FOR DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFROMANT MONON TO UNSEAL SEARCH WARRANT [ENTRY RETAINING COUNSEL RICHARD GOLDBERG MOTION To WITHORAW SERVICE OF LABORATORY REPORT. BILL OF PARTICULARS ‘STATES MOTION FOR DISCOVERY. [STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY. ENTRY OF CONTINUANCE 9799 ENTRY APPROVING COUNSEL FEES $210 ENTRY OF CONTINUANCE 8730999 DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF FAVORABLE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO RULE 16(@X KF) OF THE OHIO RULES OF CREMINAL PROCEDURES. REQUEST FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SUPPRESS ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION TO REDUCE BOND, MOTION TO SUPPRESS. WAIVER OF PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AT ARRAIGNMENT $600,000 HAMILTON GOUNTY SHERIFF: 1 HAVE IN CUSTODY AND HAVE SERVED COPY OF INDICTMENT ON SAID DEFENOANT BY SNOWDEN, SR_DEFUTY JUDGE ASSIGNED CASE ROLLED YO DINKELAGKER/PATRIGKT PRIMARY: INDICTMENT REPORTED AND FIL. CD, INDICEMENT FOR COUNT 6: 2823-128 ORCN HAVE. WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY COUNT ?:2925-11A ORCN POSSESSION OF GOGAINE WISPECS COUNT 4: 2026-07A ORCN PREP OF COCAINE FOR SALE WISPE COUNT 3.2023. 1943 ORGN HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY COUNT 4: 2823-843 ORCN HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY COUNT 5 2823-1383 ORCN HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY. PRECIPE FOR WARRANT FILED AND WARRANT ISSUED. INDICTED DESIGNATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEY WARRANTISUMBONS CHARGED-FP CARD TO BotARREST DATE/TIME 92/1999. (arest dows rol necsesarly mean physical arest but may just be the fesusnce of a ciation ) ‘82/1990 WHEN OCCURED DATE/TIMEsomcoreamas MIG FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OBTO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO ex rel, APPEAL NO. C-020503 EARL BUCKNER Relator, ENTRY DISMISSING WRIT OF MANDAMUS: HON. PATRICK DINKELACKER, JUDGE, HAMILTON COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, Respondett, This cause came on to be considered upon the PRO SE Petition for a Writ of ‘Mandamus, the motion and amended metion of the respondent to dismiss, the PRO SE response of the relator, and the PRO SE motion for judgment on the on the pleadings, and The Court, upon consideration thereof, finds that the motions to dismiss are well taken and are granted, Wherefore, the within petition fora Writ of Mandamus is dismissed Further, all other pending motions are overruled as being moot. ‘Yo The Clerk: Enter upon the Journal of the. Bys ‘ad-_ per order of the Court. (Copies sent to alt counsel) ‘Pr&éiding JudgeCase Number: ‘GRGIORAZ IST Common Pleas Case Number 8 S003805 Case Caption: STATE OF OHIOvs. EARL BUGKNER Judge: JODY M LUEBSERS Filed Date: shins ase Type: 5 WARRANT ON INDICTMENT. Race: BLACK. AFRICAN AMERICAN Sox: Age: 5 ate of Binh: aries? Bond Amount: ‘$NO BOND(RETAINED IN CUSTODY) Count: PREP OF GOGAINE FOR SALE WWSPEC 2925-07A ORCN Disposition: (92972010 - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. ‘Count 2: POSSESSION OF COCAINE WIISPECS 2325-1 1A ORCN Disposition: ‘99.2008 - MERGED WITH ANOTHER GOUNT ‘Count 3: HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY 2822-(2A3 ORCN Dispasition: (97242010 - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS count 4 HAVE WWEARNS UNDER DISABILITY 2220-1383 ORCN Disposition: ‘962009 - MERGED WITH ANOTHER COUNT counts: HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY 2022-1203 ORCN Disposition: ‘9112009 - MERGED WWTH ANOTHER COUNT counts: HAVE WEAPNS UNDER DISABILITY 2920-1383 ORCN Digposition: 672009 - MERGED WITH ANOTHER COUNT inte Fre Decimage# Date Description ‘Amo shangis REQUESTOR FORMATION REGARDING PETITION FOR CERTHEATE OF QUALIFICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT REGEIVED FROM HAMILTON COUNTY Cc1t400002 neon, REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING PETITION FOR CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT RECEIVED FROM HAMILTON COUNTY Ca<09002 singpore REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING PEITON FOR CORT RGATE OF QUALIFICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT RECEIVED FROM HAMILTON COUNTY CQ1400002 singnora REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING PETMION FOR CER AGRTE OF QUALIFICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT REGEIVED FROM HAMILTON COUNTY Cat400002 ainsqota REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGAADING PETITION FOR CEATAGATE OF QUALIFICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT REGEIVED FROM HAMILTON COUNTY Ca‘00002 snsnang RESUEST FOR INFORHATION REGAROING PETMON FOR CERTIGGATE OF, QUALIFICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT RECEIVED FROM HAMELTON COUNTY COt400002 8 {07192012 ENTRY ORDERING RELEASE OF PROPERTY TO HAMILTON COUNTY PROSECUTOR BRIO JUDGMENT ENTRY AND DECISION AFFIRMING AS MODIFIED (C 1900606) th 142011 COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS VOLUME | (G #000000) a isner1 COURT OF APPEALS OF HAMILTON COUNTY CASE NO. ¢ 199085, TRANSERIPT OF DOCKET AND JOURNAL ENTRIES FILED “JUDGMENT ENTRY: SENTENCE: INGARGERATION COUNT #2 1S MERGED WITH COUNT tt POR THE PURPOSE OF SENTENCING. COUNTS Wa, #5, AND #0 ARE MERGED WITH COUNT Terai ne PURPOSE OF SENTENCING. THE SCNTENCES IN COUNTS #1 AND #3 ARE TO uepora Be SERVED CONSECUTIVELY TO EAGH OTHER, THs TOTAL AGAEE GATE SOUTECES FIFTEEN (15) YEARS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS THE DEFENOANT 1S TO RECENE GieDIT FOR NO TIME SERVED UNDER THIS CASE NUMBER AS ALL TIME HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN UNDER CASE 63909056-A THE DEFENDANT 16 7 MAKE RESTITUTION IN ENE AMOUNT OF 834.00 FOR LAB FEE. THE DEFENDANT 1S TO PAY THE COURT COSTS.