"'IN"PIOE'SUPREME COURT OF OHIO In Re, PETER J. ATAKPU, Petitioner, V. COMMON PLEAS COURT et al., Respondent. Mathias H. Heck Jr. Montgomery County Prosecutor 301 W. Third St. P.O. Box 972 Dayton, Ohio 45422 Court Of Common Pleas Of Montgomery County 41 N. Perry St. Dayton, Ohio 45422 Peter J. Atakpu #392-309 Pro se Ross Correctional Inst. P.O. Box 7010 Chillicothe, Ohio 45601-7010 CLERK U COURT S4lPREME COURT OF OMIO TR. CASE NO. 1999-CR-2375 1999-CR-0382 APP. CASE NO. CA 25232 PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PROHIBITION i 'f ^f ^ , j .^ " 3^ ^ L^ u..LRK 0 ^ t OURR GO^^ t^, a ^ '^1 r^ ^5^1s 3^.,IYi^`. ^^^ ^ ^.^^€,^
Transcript
"'IN"PIOE'SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
In Re, PETER J. ATAKPU,Petitioner,
V.
COMMON PLEAS COURT et al.,Respondent.
Mathias H. Heck Jr.Montgomery County Prosecutor301 W. Third St. P.O. Box 972Dayton, Ohio 45422
Court Of Common Pleas Of Montgomery County41 N. Perry St.Dayton, Ohio 45422
Peter J. Atakpu #392-309 Pro seRoss Correctional Inst. P.O. Box 7010Chillicothe, Ohio 45601-7010
CLERK U COURTS4lPREME COURT OF OMIO
TR. CASE NO. 1999-CR-23751999-CR-0382
APP. CASE NO. CA 25232
PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AWRIT OF PROHIBITION
i 'f ^f ^ , j .^ "3 ^ L^
u..LRK 0 ^tOURR
GO^^ t^, a '^1 r^^5^1s 3^.,IYi^`. ^^^ ^ ^.^^€,^
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
In Re, PETER J. ATAKPUPetitioner,
V.
COMMON PLEAS COURT et al.Respondent.
TR. CASE NO. 1999-CR-23751999-CR-0382
APP. CASE NO. CA 25232
PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AWRIT OF PROHIBITION
COMES NOW the Petitioner, Mr. Peter J. Atakpu, (Hereinafter Peter) who while acting in Pro
se, do hereby request that a "Writ of Prohibition" be issued and directed towards the Respondent in the
above styled case.
Peter asserts that the Respondent is clearly violating his Constitutional rights and that he has no
other recourse than to file this action.
Peter asserts that this action is being taken in accordance with the 14th Amendment of the
United States Constitution and the Rules for Ohio Appellate Practice and Procedure.
Peter asserts that the reasons for this action are more fully stated in the Memorandum In
Support which is attached to and made part of this action.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Facts and Course of Proceedinas
Peter, was convicted of multiple offenses in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court on April
6, 2000. After being coerced to plead guilty, Peter was sentenced to a total of thirty-four years to life in
prison. Peter could not appeal his conviction because he wasn't permitted to by the court, the state, and
appointed counsel.
As soon as he discovered that he had a right to appeal, he has diligently endeavored to retrieve
his transcripts and file an appeal. Yet, the Prosecution has stood in his way every step of the way by
refusing to concede to his requests.
Peter also has evidence which would shed doubt on whether he is actually guilty, Peter
continues to maintain his innocence. Furthermore, Peter has evidence that shows the Prosecution and
the Montgomery County Jail conspired to lie and prevent Peter from receiving important documents
that are exculpatory in nature.
On February 28, 2012, Peter filed a motion and affidavit requesting documents pertaining to his
criminal case. The State then filed a memorandum in opposition on March 9, 2012. Subsequently, the
trial court overruled Peter's motion on May 9, 2012. On June 4, 2012, Peter filed a timely notice of
appeal from the trial court's decision.
Comes now, the Petitioner, Peter, who while acting in Pro se, do hereby respectfully request that
a Writ of Prohibition be issued and directed towards the Respondent in this case. Peter asserts the
following in support of the above stated request:
Argument
Ohio law gives every person convicted in a criminal trial a right of review by writ of error; but a
full direct appellate review can be had only by furnishing the appellate court with a bill of exceptions or
report of the trial proceedings, certified by the trial judge, and it is sometimes impossible to prepare
such documents without a stenographic transcript of the trial proceedings, which are furnished free
only to indigent defendants.
The jurisdiction of this court is invoked by the United States under that provision of the
Judiciary Act of 1891, by which "appeals or writs of error may be taken from the District Courts or
from the existing Circuit Courts direct to the Supreme Court" "in any case that involves the
construction or application of the Constitution of the United States." Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5;
26 Stat. 827, 828. This statute, like all acts of Congress, and even the Constitution itself, is to be read in
the light of the common law, from which our system of jurisprudence is derived. Charles River Bridge
v. Warren Bridjze, 11 Pet. 420, 545; Rice v. Railroad Co., 1 Black, 358 374, 375; United States v. Carll
105 U.S. 611• Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; 1 Kent Com. 336. As aids, therefore, in its
interpretation, we naturally turn to the decisions in England and in the several States of the Union,
whose laws have the same source.
Providing equal justice for poor and rich, weak and powerful alike is an age-old problem. I
People have never ceased to hope and strive to move closer to that goal. This hope, at least in part,
brought about in 1215 the royal concessions of Magna Charta: "To no one will we sell, to no one will
we refuse, or delay, right or justice.... No free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised, or
outlawed, or exiled, or anywise destroyed; nor shall we go upon him nor send upon him, but by the
lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." These pledges were unquestionably steps
1 "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the personof the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor." Leviticus, c. 19, v. 15.
toward a fairer and more nearly equal application of criminal justice. In this tradition, our own
constitutional guaranties of due process and equal protection both call for procedures in criminal trials
which allow no invidious discriminations between persons and different groups of persons. Both equal
protection and due process emphasize the central aim of our entire judicial system -- all people charged
with crime must, so far as the law is concerned, "stand on an equality before the bar of justice in every
American court." Chambers v. Florida. 309 U.S. 227, 241. See also Y-ick Wo v. Hopkins1lS U.S. 356,
369.2
Surely no one would contend that either a State or the Federal Government could
constitutionally provide that defendants unable to pay court costs in advance should be denied the right
to plead not guilty or to defend themselves in court.3 Such a law would make the constitutional promise
of a fair trial a worthless thing. Notice, the right to be heard, and the right to counsel would under such
circumstances be meaningless promises to the poor. In criminal trials a State can no more discriminate
on account of poverty than on account of religion, race, or color.
There is no meaningful distinction between a rule which would deny the poor the right to
defend themselves in a trial court and one which effectively denies the poor an adequate appellate
review accorded to all who have money enough to pay the costs in advance. It is true that a State is not
required by the Federal Constitution to provide appellate courts or a right to appellate review at all.
See, e. g., McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684, 687-688. But that is not to say that a State that does grant
appellate review can do so in a way that discriminates against some convicted defendants on account of
their poverty. Appellate review has now become an integral part of the Illinois trial system for finally
adjudicating the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Consequently at all stages of the proceedings the
2 But a[aw nondiscriminatory on its face may be grossly discriminatory in its operation. For example, this Courtstruck down the so-called "grandfather clause" of the Oklahoma Constitution as discriminatory against Negroes althoughthat clause was by its terms nondiscriminatory. Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347. See also Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S.268.
See discussion in Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409.
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses protect persons like petitioners from invidious
discriminations. See Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201; Dowd v. United States ex rel. Cook, 340
U.S. 206, 208; Cochran v. Kansas, 316 U.S. 255 257; Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 327.
All of the States now provide some method of appeal from criminal convictions, recognizing
the importance of appellate review to a correct adjudication of guilt or innocence. Statistics show that a
substantial proportion of criminal convictions are reversed by state appellate courts. Thus to deny
adequate review to the poor means that many of them may lose their life, liberty or property because of
unjust convictions which appellate courts would set aside. Such a denial is a misfit in a country
dedicated to affording equal justice to all and special privileges to none in the administration of its
criminal law.4 There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount
of money he has. Destitute defendants must be afforded as adequate appellate review as defendants
who have money enough to buy transcripts.
The right to an appeal from a conviction for crime is today so established that this leads to the
easy assumption that it is fundamental to the protection of life and liberty and therefore a necessary
ingredient of due process of law. "Due process" is, perhaps, the least frozen concept of our law -- the
least confined to history and the most absorptive of powerful social standards of a progressive society.
But neither the unfolding content of "due process" nor the particularized safeguards of the Bill of
Rights disregard procedural ways that reflect a national historic policy.
Nor does the equal protection of the laws deny a State the right to make classifications in law
when such classifications are rooted in reason. "The equality at which the 'equal protection' clause aims
4 The Criminal Court of Appeals in Oklahoma in 1913 spoke in the tradition of this country's dedication to dueprocess and equal protection when it declared that the law is no respecter of persons and said:
"We want the people of Oklahoma to understand, one and all, that the poorest and most unpopular person in the state ...can depend upon it that justice is not for sale in Oklahoma, and that no one can be deprived of his right of appea] simplybecause he is unable to pay a stenographer to extend the notes of the testimony." Jeffries v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 573, 576,132 P. 823, 824.
is not a disembodied equality. The Fourteenth Amendment enjoins 'the equal protection of the laws,'
and laws are not abstract propositions." Ti ner v. Texas 310 U.S. 141, 147.
But when a State deems it wise and just that convictions be susceptible to review by an
appellate court, it cannot by force of its exactions draw a line which precludes convicted indigent
persons, forsooth erroneously convicted, from securing such a review merely by disabling them from
bringing to the notice of an appellate tribunal errors of the trial court which would upset the conviction
were practical opportunity for review not foreclosed.
The State is not free to produce such a squalid discrimination. If it has a general policy of
allowing criminal appeals, it cannot make lack of means an effective bar to the exercise of this
opportunity. The State cannot keep the word of promise to the ear of those illegally convicted and break
it to their hope. The growing experience of reforms in appellate procedure and sensible, economic
modes for securing review still to be devised, may be drawn upon to the end that the State will neither
bolt the door to equal justice nor support a wasteful abuse of the appellate process.
The Court ought neither to rely on casuistic arguments in denying constitutional claims, nor
deem itself imprisoned within a formal, abstract dilemma. The judicial choice is rzot limited to a new
ruling necessarily retrospective, or to rejection of what the requirements of equal protection of the laws,
as now perceived, require. For sound reasons, law generally speaks prospectively. More than a hundred
years ago, for instance, the Supreme Court of Ohio, confronted with a problem not unlike the one
before us, found no difficulty in doing so when it concluded that legislative divorces were
unconstitutional. Bingham v. Miller, 17 Ohio 445. In arriving at a new principle, the judicial process is
not impotent to define its scope and limits. Adjudication is not a mechanical exercise nor does it
compel "either/or" determinations.
CONCLUSION
No objection can come too late, which discloses the fact that a person has been put to answer a
crime in a mode violating his legal and constitutional rights. The doctrine of waiver has nothing to do
with criminal prosecutions. No person can be put upon his defense on the charge of crime, or be
convicted of crime, except in the exact mode prescribed by law. And whenever it shall be made
manifest, in the progress of a criminal prosecution, that the legal rights of the person charged have been
violated, the court will permit the accused to have the benefit of the error.
Yet it is contended that if you have the form and not the substance, that lack of vigilance or
mistake to take advantage of it at the right moment, or in a wrong mode, will convert the shadow into a
reality. This is neither true in reason or sound in law; and it is time, in criminal prosecutions, that the
whole cob-web of legal fiction and technical inference against the accused should be stricken down.
Facing reality; Peter J. Atakpu is a poor (indigent) black man who was abused by certain
individuals whom took an oath NOT to do exactly what they DID do. Peter was threatened with
execution, lied to, and was forbidden Constitutional rights. Peter only wants his opportunity to appeal
and have his day in court. He asks that this honorable court grant this Writ and stop the unconstitutional
injustice that is being performed by those in the Montgomery County Justice System. Give Peter his
transcripts and let him have his day in court to prove his innocence.
Respectfully submitted,
x 92 ,_^O
Peter J. A pu #392-309R.C.I. P.O. Box 7010
Chillicothe, Ohio 45601-7010
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of the Petition For The Issuance Of A Writ Of Prohibition wassent via U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecutor at P.O.Box 972, 301 West Third St., Dayton, Ohio 45422 on this day of 5th day of October, 2013.
Respectfully sub i ted,X
gPeter J. Atakpu #392-309
R.C.I. P.O. Box 7010Chillicothe, Ohio 45601-7010
Affidavit of Indisen.cv
I, Peter J. Atakpu, do hereby solemnly swear that I have presently this 10th day of October, 2013
no means of financial support and no assets of value and therefore, cannot pay any legal services, fees
or costs in the above-styled case.
Affidavit of Commitment
Upon penalty of perjury I swear and affirm that the attached documents are true and accurate to
the best of my knowledge and also attached are my commitment papers and my cause of detention:
(SEE ATTACHED)
Affidavit of Verity
I, the undersigned, after first being duly cautioned and sworn to by oath, depose and say that I
am aware of the penalties for perjury and that any false statement made by me in the foregoing legal
documents attached hereto will subject me to such penalties for perjury.
I further state that the allegations, averments, or contents of the legal documents attached hereto
are true and correct.
4'X2_/- ,
Sworn to and subscribed in my presence this ^ day of 4i(.a^ 2013.
- SEAL
NOTARY PUBLIC
8i 111111a>•
TENA HOWARDtk►tary PtNc
° 51ate ®9 OhiaMy Commisslon Expires MARCH 07,2018
0, h 'l' o D^^aartment ofR^^ab'tlitation & CorrectionJohn ft. ICasicta, GovernorGory C, Mohr, Director
770 W. 8roczd Street Coiurrrbcis, Ohio 43222
Monday, March 18, 2013 7:01 AM
RCI [BOSC - UPDATE & CORRECTION] BY: LAZEAR
INMATE #: A392309 COMMENTS: 80% INELIGIBLENAME , ATAKPU, PETER JEMMA
04/17/2000 WEAPON UNDER 1 c 2 2923.134 MONT 99CR2375 C I
0 1.00
04/17/2000w^w
0 8.00
04/17/2000
3.00 0
04/17/2000
0 12i.{}U
DISABILITY
0 0 0/0 0 /0 GORMAN HECK
ESCAPE I C 2 2921.34 4 MON7
[URD ER
15.00 888.88
EL ASSAULT
0 /0
I
0/0
0/0 GORMAN
C MR 2903.02 4
0 /0 GORMAN HECK
MONT4 C 2 2903.114
0 /0 0 /0 GORMAN
AGGREGATE SENTENCE: 3 GUN+ 16.00 TERM+ 15.00- LIFE
REMARKS: HUB
DATES: *E*
HEARING DATE
2/3 HD
ACTUAL HD
li_.. __ .. ....,..^
99CR2375 g
11
99CR2375 S
L 278.. . .... .. .
99CR2375 C
07/2033 AGG DEF SENT YEARSAGG STATED TERM SENT YRS 16.00
07!0412033 AGG MINIF"ULI. SENT YEARS i5.00
2/3 ACTUAL
MAX SENT EXP DATE
EXPIRATION DEF SENT
2/3 EDS
AGG Al SENT YEARS01/01/8888 AGG MANDATORY YEARS.
AGG MAX SENT YEARS
AGG MDO YEARSSTATED TERM EXP DATE
GUN EXPIRATION DATEEXP OF MANDATORY TERMEXPIRATION OF EST HB86-5 SENTENCEEXPIRATION OF EST SB2 SENTENCE80% RELEASE ELIGIBILITY DATE92% EARN CREDIT CAP HB86-5 SENTENCE
888.88
07/08/2018 AGG RVO YEARS04I16/2003:AGG JAIL TIME CRE (days) 278
EXPIRATION OF EST HB86-1 SENTENCEEXPIRATYON OF EST HB86-0 SENTENCE
BARRYS. GALEN & ASSOCIATESli AFZRY S. GALEN' 111 Wcst First 5tceet
CHARLES W. SLICEi ii:Mi L. i3ARftN5uite 518 - (Of Courisel)
Dayton, Ohio 45402TELEPHONE (937) 223-! 113
.'AIso admitted in New 1ork FAX (9.37) 223-$318
June 15, 2000 -
PQt- Atakpu ; 392-3QgC.R.^,.P.O. Box 300ujrion;'-
n e AZ' -7 1"C(1- t«i^
I{ie. Your Cases
Llear Peter:
I am irt receipt of youi- letter of june 14, 2000, requesting a copy of your file, en'J(]--;:iplease find as follows: Discovery on the Murder Case, Discovery on the i=elonious Assault Ca_,L;aiong with the transcript of the Suppression Hearing, and Psychological Reports-
Please ^,o^,..^^ there is o trans ^ ri ^ ^ ztl
f f^,^ «^ ^ {
^ i;_, ptt. ii i i ry pisSSe.^aiv r ut U rOur t^ r uay T I kai. : he COu) ^
does rlot prepare one unless necessary foi ari Eippeal. As vC)Lf ale aVlfar e v{}Li are urlable tii
appeal your case, so there was no transcript prepared. A trahscriDt can be prepared, how;beiieve you wouTd have to arrange to pay the costs with the Court Reporter prior to a transCriptbeing made. Based on the 1en^th of the Trial and testin montf oreSGI iL ed T l..Cl f 1^'^ i1 ^^ ^' , 1 yU'^,J 11'^ di.
transcriot would be approximately Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000). I am also enclosing a copyof the "draft" of the request for second opiniori on the psychological. Please let me know anyother information ' you have with rE'Clard to th£.e ^c..6lont^'al 3nd why y',,u ^-ei St`^e did ilut dC1t--, ... ^what she was paid to do. The report indicated that she went through the "requireci" procedure:,,although they may not be as thorough as we lil:e and were as not as favorable if we hired ou-own, this individual has always been found to be pretty fair with their reports. Any informationyou might have would be helpful in pursuing this second opinion. I also, welcome yourcomments on any witnesses or strategies, which you feel would be helpful in your ur)comingfelonies assault case. I remain,
Very truiy yours,
Ba71,' S. Galan/jfmEnclosures
Montgomery County PRO V2
Montgomery County OhioClerk Of Courts
Gregory A. BrushPublic Records Online System Version II
1999 CR 02375- STATE OF OHIO Vs PETER ]EMMA ATAKPU
MEMQRANDUM FI1ED CONTRA REGARDING 7 RANSCRIPTS. Aktorney:INGRAM, LARLEY 3 {GGZ0084E}
08/13/2012 MOTION OF DEFENDANT Attorney: PRO SE (PROOOOOE)
f" i08/01/2012 PRAECIPE TO THE COURT REPORTER FILED Attorney: PRp SE (PR00000E)
OS/01/2012 MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO STRIKE. Attorney: PRO SE (PR000GOE)
', RESPONSE FOR RE SENTENCING Attorney:07/18/2012
INGRAM, ;AR LEY ] (0020084E), , -
J07/18/2O1 MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO COMPEL. Attorney: PRO SE (PR00000E)
+^I07/fl5/201zMOTION OFPLAINTIFF F4R EX TVNSION OF TI1NE Attorney=INGRAM,CARL7`Y 7 (0020084E)
^. -^6/27/2012 MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO REVIEW Attorney: PRO SE ( PR00000E)
ff,10/26/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY DEFT. (CA 24312)
^ I10J26/201D MaTION OF DEFENDANT TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPEI2IS Attorney: PROSE (PROOOOOE)
^ -__ ---- .- -- ---- - - -^
W10/26/2010^MOTION OF DEFENDANT FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON APPEALAttorney: PRO SE ( PR00000E)
( D40TION OF DEFENDANT TO ORDER P RUDUCTION OF EVI DENC£. Attarne09J29/2010PRO SE (PR000D0E) y:
- , -- - - -- - --- ---DECISION ORDER AND ENTRY FILED, OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONFOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA AND OV ERRULING DEFENDANT' S
09/22/ 2010 MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND OVERRULING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'SMOTION FOR STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CONCL USION5 OF LAW FOR EACHMOTION SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT GORMAN
MOTION OF DEFENi]ANT FOR STATEMENT bF FACTS AND C{1NCLUS.ION5 OF07/29JZ010I LAW FOR EACH MOTION SUBMITTED BY DEF ENDANT. Attariiey: PRO SE
MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA. Attorney: PRO SE6/02/ZO10 ( PR00000E)
DCISION AND EN RY FIi D, - VERRtl ' D F€ D idT'S U F-5-^T-FQ)t TRECORDS AND AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY AND MOT ION OF DEFENDNAT T O
UK04/30/2010 ORDERPRODUGTION OF EYIDENCEAN4 SUSTAINING MOTION OFDEFENDANT FOR EKTENSIDNOF TIME AND HOLDING IN ABEYANCEDEFENLIANT'S M4T30 T^APPOINT CS^,t^1Mg,. X'saRl^AN
}' 1/07/2010 MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO ORDER PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE FILED.Attvrney: PRO S E ( 0000000)
_--_--....,^OF DEFENDANT CONTRA STATE'S h1EMORANDUM CONTRA M^OTION
r-OR PRODUCTION OF RECORDS. At#orney: PRO SE (0000000)
12/07/2009 MEMORANDUM CONTRA MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF RECORDS Attarney:INGRAM, CARLEY ] (0020084)
-T- ---^--s- -- -- T ^MOTIQN OF DE hlFEL^qN7 TO 4RER P RO^[7UCTIO N oF EvI D E Attorne
12/02J20D9 pROSE (0000000)
11/20/2009 MEMORANDUM CONTRA MOTION FOR RECORDS FILED Attnrney: INGRAM,CARLEY ] (0020084)
04/17/2000 WARRANT TO CONVEY RETURNED ENDORSED, HAINES BY DEPUTY
'[04/14/2000 SiATE S NOTIFICATION OF RETURNED EXH ISITS TO COURT REPORTER
iFILED Attorney: DAIDONE, LEON 3(0 017354}
^,~} f04113/2000 MOTION OF DEFENDANT FOR CONTACT VISIT FILED. Attorney: GALEN,BARRY $ (0045540)
. `^^.^,.*.-^--•-.^ _" - ___--..._ ...3
q4/11J2000 WARRANT TO CONVEY ISSUED TO SHERIFF
TERMINATION ENTRY FILED, 4-6-2000, DEFT. SENTENCED B YRS.CORRECTIONS RECEPTION CENTER ON CT. 1& 15 YRS TO LIFE ON CT. 2 &8 YRS. ON CT. 3, 8 YRS. ON CT. 4, 8 YRS. ON CT. 5, 8 YRS. ON CT. 6, & 1. YR.
ON CT. 7, CTS. 1 &7 TO BE SERVED CONCURRENT WITH EACH OTHER CT.3,4,5, &6 TO BE SERV ED CONSECUTIVE TO CT. 2 AND CONSECUT IVE TOCOUNTS 3,4,5 & 6. THE COURTS MERGES ALL THREE 3 YRS. FIREARM SPEC.
INTO ONE (1) THREE (3YR) FIREARM SEPC. 3 YRS. ACTUALINCARCERATION ON FIREARM SPEC. TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVE TO ANDPRIOR TO DEFINITE AND INDEFINI TE TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT. IN SUMDEFENDANT IS SENTENCED TO A TOTAL OF THIRTY-FOUR (34) YRS. TO
LIFE. GORMAN
04J10/2000',]URY LIST FII.ED
04/10/2000 3URY EMPANELED AND SWORN. GORMAN
i04/10/2000•1TERMf4Af10N COl)RTCOST
4/10/2000! REPARATION FEE- FELONY
ENTRY OF WAIVER AND PLEA FILE[? 4 6 00. GUILTY TO CpUNT 2, M UR E04/ 10/ 2000; WITH A 3 YR FIR^EAR^1 SP€C 04RI'f14N
ENTRY OF WAIVER AND PLEA FILED 4-6-00. GUILTY TO 4 CTS FELONIOUS04/10/2000 ASSAULT (DEADLY WEAPON) WITH A 3 YRS FIREARM ON EACH COUNT.
03/15/2000 SUBPOENA SERVED STATE SHAWN JACKSON (NF).^x ^_.... _ ....^.
i03j1312000 SUBPOENA SER ED,,STATE fZEGTNA GREE ►V (R ) ^^>
03/10/2000 SUBPOENA SERVED BARBARA KOOB, STEVE KOOB, VIVYAN KOOB, ETHELBLEVINS, RICKY ANDERSON (R)
SU$POENA $E VEDSTAFE 70HN BO#CKMAN, SM D P' w^031Y0/2000 ^LAyVELi, ^MA UEl SOHANN R
03/10/20Q0 SUBPOENA SERVED STATE MARK KENDRICK, DEREK BARKER, BRANDONKENNERLY, DAIVD DAVIS (R) JAMES BROWN (P)
^-^ -9J 2 ^
D00 S0BPOENA SERVED $TATE ALAN NdLVI , ' '6jiTA ACC A ftw, Y03/D
(R)
SUBPOENA FILED AND ISSUED TO JOHN BOECKMAN; JIM DOBBINS;STEPHANIE CALDW ELL; EMANUEL BOHANNON; REGINA GREEN; ALANCOLVIN; PANCHITA ACCIARD; GARY BOYD; BARBARA KOOB; STEVE KOOB;
VIVIAN KOOB; SHAWN JACKSON; ETHEL BLEVINS; RICKYANDERSO6l; MARK
Page 5 of 8
http://cocwebsrv2003r2:82/pro/ 11/9/2012
Montgomery County PRO V2
KENDRICK; JAMES BROWN; DEREK BARKER; BRANDON KENNERLY; DAVIDDAVIS BY TH E STATE.- _-
/z0aaSHERIFF TRANSPORTATION FEE FILED.
o2/io';_ --- -- -- -- _
=` `k 02; 09/2000 pQ GORMANAP PEARANCE FILED, FI NAL PRE-TRIAL 3-22-00 AND TRIAL 4-3-
OZ/A7/2000 DECISION AND ENTRY FILED, OVERRULING DEFT'S MOTION TO SUPP^2ESS-GORMAN
01/31/2000 DAYTON POLICE DEPARTMENT WITNESS FEE
• 101J18J2000 STATE S F1EMpRANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESSFILED. Attorney: DAIDONE, LEflN 3(0017354)
---L -^ --- ' - - --- --- ,.---
• 01/ 10/2000 STENOGRAPHER'S CERTIFICATE FILED
F01/10/2000SHERIFF TRANSPORTATION FEE FILED.
112/16/1999 MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHERIFF FEE
-j
,I2114/1999 SUBPOENA SERVED STATE OR D SUSAN DYER (P)
a.^ -- - - - - - - - -- -- -
12/13/1999 SUBPOENA FILED AND ISSUED TO DR. D . SUSAN PERRY DYER BY THESTATE
-- , --- --12/13/1999 R-kSPONSE TO DEFT'S MOTION FOR SILL OF PARTICULARS BY
PROSECUTOR.
01
12/10/1999 ENTRY FILED, FINDING DEFT COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL. GORMAN
12/p9/1999^ 5NERIFF TRANSPORTATTON FEE FIL ED.
----
12/09/1999 ORDER OF APPEARANCE FILED, M OTION TO SUPPRESS 1-7-00. GORMAN
11J29/ 1999^ SHERIFF TRANSPORTATION FEE FILED.
t 11124/1999 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND ENTRY FILED, GRANTED TO 12-8-99.GORMAN
. __-_.^_ ^_ - - -- - - ----- --- - - -
11/12/1999 BILL OF PARTICULARS FILED BY ATTY. BARRY GALEN.
^ - _ - -- - - - _ - `-^
910/07/1999 ENTRY AND ORDER FOR COMPETENCY EXAM FILED. GORMAN
ORDERHTS FILEU^GORMAN ^FRMINE COMPETENCY ATTIE OF10/07/1999 ^I^NDAR G
10/07/1999 SHERIFF TRANSPORTATION FEE FILED.
`^10/ D6/ 1999 MOTiON OF DEFENRANT FDR COM PETENCY EXAM INATION ANal EVALUATION FILE'O BY ATTY. SARRYGALEN:
10/04/1994 WARRANT ON TNDIC7ME^IT ( FLAGGED) served on: 07/23/1999 Fpr:ATAKPU, PETER ]EMMA
10/04/1999 AR-W-AWcT ^N I DIC7M^N^T (fU4^ G^ED} issued on: ^7f 23/^19^9 FpY A 1
tATA14PL1, PETER ]EMMA
10/Ol/1999 MOTION OF DEFENDANT FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM INATION ANDEVALUATION FILED BY ATTY BARRY GALEN.
^ ^- --- --
09/08 f 1999 ORDER OF APPEARANCE FILED, M OTION TO SUPPRESS 14 -5-99; GOE2MAN
09/08/1999 SHERIFP TRANSPOttTATION FEE FILED.
Page 6 of 8
http://cocwebsrv2003T2:82/pro/ 11/9/2012
Montgomery County PRO V2
08/24/1999 RECEIPT OF DISCOVER Y PACKET FILED
Q08/20/1999
^
MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED BY ATTY BARRY GALEN
+"i08/ 18/ 199 {GORDER
ORMANF:.^APPEARANCE FILEp, Ft OTION TO SUPPR6SS 11 /8/ 99 AT 3:00.
+Ja08/18/1999 SHERIFF TRANSPORTATION FEE FILED.
¢^ - O8/05J1999MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND ENTRY FILED, GRANT ED TO 8-18-99^
3GORMAN^ ' - - - _ _
08/05/1999 SHERIFF TRANSPORTATION FEE FILED.
0$/t)q/1999 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FILED SY ATTY MIA SPELLS.
• 07/30/1999 ORDER OF APPOINTMENT FILED WINFIELD KINNEY TO REPRESENT DEFT.GORMAN
07/291 999!ENTRY FILED, CASE TRANSFERREa FROM JUOGE FfJLEY T O JUbGEGORMAN GORMAN
Na
7/29/1999 REQUEST FOR DiSQUALIFICATION FILED BY JUDGE FOLEY.
^ Et+iTRY FILED, DEFT STOOD MUTE 7/27199. GORMAN
----
I07/28/ 1999 ORDER OF APPOINTMENT FILED, M IA W ORHTAM-SPELLS AS COUNS EL.FOLEY
