IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOSTATE OF OHIO

JEFF REED, Relator

V

ST'ATE OF OHIO et alGERALD F. L'ORIG, Retired *DOUGLAS M.:RASTATTER; RespondentCLARK COUNTY COURT OFCOMMON PL'EASD. ANDREW WIL''SON, RespondentCLARK COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE

^

- --------- - -

ORIGINAL' ACTION IN WRIT OF PROCEDENDO

STATE OF OHIO, RESPONDENT'S eti a1'.

GERACD F. LORIG, Respo'ndentC7ark County Court of Appea^'s Co'mmo'n Pleas' - Respondent Forl®1 N. Limest®neSt:Spri'ngfieTd, Oh'i® 45502

DOUGCAS M°. RASTATTER, Pre's'i"d`i"ng Re'spo'n`den`t'CCARK COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PL'EAS101 N. Limestone St.Springfield, Ohio 45502

D. ANDREW WICSON, RespondentCL'ARK COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICEANDREW R. PICEK (0082121) Attorney for RespondentAssist. Clark County Prosecutor (937) 521-1770, FAX(937)328-265750 E Columbia St 4th Fl..oorP.O. Box 1608Springfield, Ohio 45501

Relator: JEFF REED, Pro seJeffrey Dean Reed A152-241Belmont Correctional Inst.P.O. Box 540St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950

A. J.Sun_ Crt_' Nnl

Tr. Crt. No. 78-CR-86

C 0 M P C A I N T

ORAGsAfAt

F J

dlllN 09 2011

CLERK UF COURTSUPREME COURIOF UHIO

73

TABLE OF MNTENTS

TABCE OF AUTHORITIES :

SPECIFIC STATEMENT OF FACTS a

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF WRIT „oo „ .ao ...ee. ............. 6

AFFIDAVIT SPECIFYING DETAIUS ATTACHED...

RECIEF SOUGHT ^ ,♦ e,eeeeeebe e,e,eeeeeeee:, •w'e,:see:eeeleeeeee,ee• 1 2, 13PROOF OF SERVICE ,;,, ,,;,,;,, . .....e.,e...e........e..e.,.. ...... 13FACT ONE ....... .. :...r'. 1,

FACT TWO ............................. 1

ERCT..... FACT THREE .e .............. 2

FACT FOUR .........:.ee.. .e 2

FACT FIVE .......................... 2,$911

FACT SIX e,e•e.ae'eti':ee'."s 2fMe11

FACT SEVEN 2,8

FACTEIGHT 2

FACTNINE .:.......e...... 2,E,7>9... ... ,^

FACT TEN ........................... 3,9

FACT ECEVEN :ee3:C,9

FACT TWEeVE: .,:,a, 4,5,7,9 [Fact Thirteen]..7,

FACTFIFTEEN 4,10 [FACT FOURTffEN].:10,

FACT SIXTEEN,e..ee 5,11

FACT SEVENTEEN .'...e..............:.: 5,10,11

FACT EIGHTEEN .:<'....e...ee.:.eee:: 5,10,11,FACT NINETEEN

Ru7es.......... 3

O:R':C°. 2903.01 ... ...e.:.2,3

STATUTES: 2929:04tt:4

O.R.C. 2901.21 ,........

O.R.C. 2901.22 ..:.:.....:....

V.R.U. LV9DL1N ......... •e.e.........e .....

3;9

3,7,9,10

O.R.C. 2945:75 . . .. ^,9

O.R.C. 2945.78 :........, . . .............................. 3 >9

Constitutional Provision . .... .. .........................

Ohio & Federal Due Process ....... .....:......:....:..

Ohio & Federal Equal Protection .........:....:......:..

CASES: AUTHORITIES

Ames v New York (1984) 593 F Supp`, 972

Brewer v Akiken Stephens V'. Kemp 846 F 2d 642

Branco v S'ingleta'ry 943 F2d at 1505

Cooper v Griffin (1972) 455 F2d 1142

Doublas v CaTi'f (1963) 372 U:S3. 353

Green v Brigano (1995) 904 F.S. at 675

Green V Brigano (1997) 123 F3d 917

Goodin v State (1865) 16 Ohi'o St 344,345

Gaddy v Linahan (1986) 780 F2d 935

Griffin v Illinois (1956) 351 U:S; 12

Harvey v Bentley (1991) 74 O.A. 3d 380

Henders'on v Morgan (1976) 426 U:S: 637

Coyd v Whitley (1992) 977 F2d 149

Nagi v U.S. (6th0'r: 1996) 9 F3d 130

O'Neal v McAri ►sch (1995) 115 S:ct: 992

Penry v Lynaught (1989) 109 S.Ct: 2934, 2956

R®ss'v Moffitt (1974) 417 V.S. 600

Speigner v'Jago (1979) 603 F2d 1208

Stevens' v State, 3 Ohio St. 453 i'i'i

State v Baker (1960) 177 N:E^:2d 348

State V Beasley (1984) 14 Ohio St. 3d 74

State ex rel C"r'uzado v Zalesk'i 111 ®hi® St 3d 353

State v Deem (1988) 40 Oh'io St^. 3d 205

State v Goolsy 245 N^:E.2d 742

State v Crimsiey (1982) 3®.A.3d 265

State v Ho7dcroft 2010 WL 3529240

State v Johnson (6th Cir 1992) 979 F2d 396,398

State v Milazo (1980) 19 0,:0,.3d 351

State v Per`ry (1967) 10 Oh'io St 2d 175

State v S'impkins (2008) 117 Ohio Stc 3d 420

State v Thomas (1988) 40 Ohio St 3d 213

State v Tay7or (1972) 30 0.A:2d 252,256

State v Van Hoose (1954) 142 N.E.2d 668

State v Vires 226 N.E.2d 245

State v Wilkins (1980) 64 Ohio St 2d 382,388.

State v Wolfe 187 N:E.2d 658

UoS. v Brown (1997) 117 F3d 471

U.S. v Frye (1984) 738 F2d 196, 197

U,:S°. v McCarthy (1969) 394 U:S.459

U.S. v Randolph 230 F3d 243

WEEMS V U.S. 217 U.S. 349

Wolfe v Randle (2003) 267 F. Supp. 743.

A P P E N D I X

Ohi'o PubTi`c Defender stat'ing defendant has arguable mer'i't Exhibit A

D:D:R.C,. Refuse's' defendant Alternative treatment to inmat'es' Exhibit B

Apendix continues:

Court Order Psych'i'atrie Evaluat'ion PROOF OF CESSER OFFENSE Exhibit C-1, 3pg.

The Dartmouth Behavior Science Center (PROOF OF BODY FUNCTIONS Ex. C-2, 3pg.

Eugene Cherry, Ph.D: Illiterate p Borderline Mentally Retarded Ex. C-3, 3pg.

Motion Application for Transcripts March 03,1989 Exhibit D, 3 Pgs.

L'etter from Clerk of Courts Showing I was requesting Transcripts Nov.1989 Ex D

Indictment front cover, Count one; Specification one Exhibit E

Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty Ju1y 24, 1978 Exhibit F 1-4

Order accepting Plea Petition outside court room July 24,1978 Exhibit G

Sentencing Journal Entry July 26, 1978 Exhibit H- ----------- -----Entry Overruling Defendants De Novo Resentencing Motion's Exhibit I...

Fi1ed Dec 13,2010, 0verruled Jan.! 14, 2011

AFFIDAVIT OF VERITY OF JEFF REED

AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENT JEFF REED

AFFIDAVIT OF CIVIL' FILING

v

IN THE SUPREME COURT. OF OHIOSTATE OF OHIO

JEFF REED, Relator * Sup. Crt. No.

v * Tr.Crt.No. 78-CR-86

STATE OF OHIO et.a7. *GERAfD F. LORIG, - RespondentDOUGLAS M. RASTATTER, -RESPONDENT C 0 M P L' A I N TCLARK COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEASD. ANDREW WILSON,-RespondentCLARK COUNTY PROSECUTOR OFFICE

ORIGINAL' ACTION IN WRIT OF PROCEDENDO

Nclw comes Jeff Reed, Pro se in the manner of Procedeno against the

respondents titled herein for the reasons within this Writ, which include the

Statement of the facts and legal argument as to why this Court should intervene

and take action

[ SPECIF IC ^STATEMENT _OF _FACTS ]

^Fact One^ This matter comes from the 1978 death of Gregory A. Raynor by

defendant Jeff Reed who was indictedApri1 27, 1978, without complaint, Bill of

information or affidavits.

_CFLaet Twoj,, (a). In the Indictment count one and specification one describes

duplicity'in the charge and elements. INDICTMENT:

Count Onec Purposely and with rior Calculation and designed, cause thedeath of Gregory A. Raynor [ or T"purposely. cause the death of Gregory A.Raynor while fleeing immediately after committing [ or ] attempting to committkidnapping, rape, agg. burglary [ or ] burglary in violation of section2903.01 of the revised code.

S.peetfieations Ong "The Grand Jury further find and specify that the victimof the offense, Gregory Raynor, was a law enforcement officer, to-wit: a deputysheriff of the Clark County Sh'eriffs Department, whom the said Jeff Reed knewto be such [ And I said victim was engaged in his dutites at the time of theoffense [ or ] it was the offenders specific purpose to kill a law enforcementofficer.

1

FACT ( 2)(b). It is clear count one uses the words (terms) ['or ] three

times, and the word [ and ] R[ or ] one time each which describes two or three

types of elements and both section (A) R(B) dual charges to O.R.C. 2903.01.

Clearly expressing duplicity without distinction.

_CFACT THREE_L-L On May 2, 1978, the defendant plead not guilty and not guilty

by reason of insanity as to all counts.

(FACT. FQUR This lead to the court ordering a psychiatric evaluation be

done May 03,1978.

CFACT FIVE1, On June 14,1978, Dr: Harold Fishbain from Mental Health Service

of Clark County filed his report with the court in which there was evidence to

the case "NOT" showing Purposeful and Precalculation and design, but showing

evidence of, either involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide.

C1^1CT SshX^,, Notice of a Hearing on competency was made June 14,1978 and the

hearing was June 26, 1978, in which at that time evidence was brought forth by

the Psychiatric Doctor and report as to the lesser inc7uded offense of

involuntary Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide to Judge John W. Henderson, who

possess this knowledge of this particular case.

_CFACT AEVENJ_, On Ju1y 24, 1978, j udge Richard T. Cole, ordered that Gerald

F. Lorig, take over for judge John W. Henderson who became ill Vol. 057 Page

845.

CFACT EIGHTiL, (a) On July 24, 1978, within a couple of hours Gerald F.

Lorig, Participated with defendant attorney in the matter of a plea petition.

(b). Accepted the plea petition outside of the court room by order.

(FACT NINE1, The attorneys, Prosecution and judge Gerald F. L'orig

misrepresented an Illiterate, borderline mentally retarded defendant with

organic brain syndrome and on medication in presenting a guilty plea petition

which he did not understand and which is also not distinguishable. see the Plea

2

Petition at No.14:

"I wish to plead guilty and respectfully request the court to accept myplea as guilty as charged in count I of theindictment, guilty as charged inspecification l of thelst count of the indictment, ***°

The defendant is pleading to a statement which makes an acceptance of

duplicity of the elements and charges as though he is pleading to both sections

(Charges) and three elements to O.R.C. 2903.01. So the i7literate / Borderline

defendant is not aware of the elements and charges. Actually never was any way,

just pointing the facts out that show clearly by law this holds duplicity and

is undistinguished. It is.clear it is not knowingly plead to by law.

(FACT JENJ_, The Plea Petition at No. 17 waives Criminal Rule 11 ( c)(4):

" I specifically waive any considerations or protections which I may havepursuant to criminal rule 11 (C)(4) regarding the impanelling a three judgepanel for the purpose of determining whether the offense was Agg. Murder or: alesser included offense and request the court to Immediately proceed withsentence."

But, the ta&t _rem3ins that the defendant did not waive the

statute's which concern culpability or the lesser degree of crime

by a single judge court on the courts duty to the degree of crime

issue: as to determination of the offense.

LFLACT ELEVENJ, The single judge court ignored his duties,

failed to Comport with O.R.C. 2901.21, 2901.22, 2945.74, 2945.75

and 2945.78 as to the culpability and degree of crime Issue, and

created a manifest injustice, sincethe former judge who became

i11 knew of the guilt to the lesser offense and the j udge just

pushed the plea petition by an order outside the court room, did

not pay attention that the petition accepted duplicity from the

indictment which did not distinguish which charge was being plead

to, and made his Journal Entry Misrepresenting a plea of guilty In

an unclear plea petition and making his entry contrary to law for

3

not comporting with his duty to the degree of crime as mandated by

our legislature which gives him j urisdiction to safe guard

defendants and finalize the Conviction and sentence.

j^ FACTWEL : On July 26, 1976 The prosecution moved by oral motion to

proceed as a capital offense upon any rriit'i'gation hearing the judge

overruled the capital offense and went wit'h the fact the plea petition stands

on count' one (1) of the indictment and s'pecification thereto is life

imprisonment, and without any distinction or determinat`ion of degree of crime

of factual basis for the plea`. 'Just made his journal entry a's accept'ing the

order and plea petit'ion.

r,FACT THIRTEEN ,a, (A): When the pros'ecution mo've'd fo'r th`e capital offense

the defendant rec;uested to hi`s atto'rney Ron'atd Galluzzo fo'r' a hear'i'ng on the

matfer of the manslaughter whi'ch judge John Henderson spoke on at the

competency hearing. and his attorney made him a false promise of a parole at

his minimum s'entence which his attorney could not keep such promise. (B) The

judge did not personally address the defendant but just followed the flawed

plea petition, ( C) The Judge Corig sentenced the defendant to 2929'.04 which was

found unconstitutional 'in State v Cockett Ju1y 3, 1978, 23 Crim(. C Rprt. with

Bell v Ohi'o 'Ju1'y 3, 1938:

r FACT F URTEEN,Z When the judge sentenc`e the defendant , Defendant requested

to his att'orney Ronald Galluzz tfiat he wants to appeal; His attorney

misrepr"esented the defendant by making a false statement that the defendant

cannot appeal a guilty plea, misleading the defendant into be1ievi'ng he could

not appeal, therefore allowing time to pass for' a timely appeal.

J_FACT FIFa'EEN_J (A). The defendant 'Jeff Reed started r'ecaue'sting as'sistance

some years iater as to some form of appeal by the Ohio Publ'ic Defenders Offi'ce

for years. ( B) Enclosed is an affidavit by relator and a letter from Chief

4

Public defender"'John A. Bay of OCP:D:O. wh'ich st'ates:

"Over the years, you have communicated with our attorneys fr'®m this officeregarding your claims. Sad1y, our attorneys have found your' cla`ims witharguable merit and declined to r`epresent you. ***

L FAC-L5_IXTEEN (A) the defendant 'in late 1988 through late 1989, made

requests for transcripts to the clerk of courts, ba1'iff and court reporter who

denied him transcripts on the grounds he was indigent and couid not pay. (B).

Defendant then filed a Motion for transcripts March 03,1989, while those

transcripts existed and the court did not respond to the motion. (C) The court

on request and Notice by defendant knowing defendant wanted those transcripts

denied him on ground of Indigent and t'hen ordered them destroy Oct'. 18,1990.

,[ FAU-,SEVENTLE-1-1 §A4: THe STATE OF OHIO thr®ugh Public Defender Ronald

Galluzzo, misrepresented defendant by his attorney inactions and his attorney

telling defendant' he cannot appeal h`is guilty p1'e'a; ( B). The OHIO PUBCIC

DEFENDERs OFFICE refused to represent the defendant when they agreed he had

arguable merit, ( C). The denia'1 of Transcripts on the groun'ds of ind'i'gency by

Public Officials because of indigency by cle'rk Ronald Vince'n't and the cou'r't'

reporter and (D). The Clark County Court of Common Pleas Judges wh'i1e on notice

of the need for transcripts the court still ordered them destroyed. All these

facts seventeen (a)-(c) deprived defendant Jeff Reed of any adequate remedy at

law for an appeal by transcripts a'nd representation.

I-FA_ 9 -5-IGHTEEN1 ( A) Defendant move'd for a' De Novo r`esentencing Motion on

the void conviction & Sentence I Judgment December 13, 2010; ( B) The state of

Ohio Clark County prosecutor refused to respond t® the de novo and (c) Judge

Douglas M. Rastatter refused the De Novo by vague words' overruling the matter

and would not acknowledge resentencing.

NINETE,E,f^ Because of t'h'e STATE OF OHIO atto'rneys &'Judge Co`r'ig

misrepresentat'ion in this case, the Clark County court of Common P1eas, 'Judge,

5

Clerk, Baliff and Court report'er denied transcri'pts on indigency and Des'troyed

the transcr'ipts a'nd has pr'ejudi'ce defendant mak'in'g thi matter a Miscarri'age of

Justi'ce.

LFAO TWENTL1 Because the' defendant 'is 1 egal:ly i nnocent of the h'i'gher

charge and the higher charge continues his incarceration the O.D.R. & Corr. who

does not allow alternati've medi'c'ine to be' used on inmates Jeff Reed 'is' n®t able

to received Alternative Treatment (Also termed Research) for the Hep. C virus

via for hi's 1'ive'r.

M E^ R A N D U M_j P!_ S U P P Q^T

It. is apparent from [FACT TWO] the indictment holds duplicity in elements and

charges and does not distinguish which the defendant maybe guilty of. In [FACT

NINE] The plea peition accepts the indictment with duplicity in the elements

and charges without distinction to which he may be guilty of. In [FACT EL'EVEN]

& [FACT TWELVE] Judge Gerald F. Corig did not make or analyze the indictment,

plea petition and failed to make a distinction on the degree of crime or a

factaul basis for the plea to safeguard defendant. In the Case Randolph, "Any

Ambiguities in the language of a plea agreement must be construed against the

government. RANOOLPH _, 230 F3d 243.

In LFACT FLVEI ( Exhibit C), the psychiatric report and addendums to presence

evidence of [FACT NINE] the misrepresentation to an illiterate borderline

mentally retarded defendant as to the guilty plea. In Cooper v Griffin (1972)

455 F2d 1142; State v Milazo (1980) 19 0.0.3d 351:

"Where defense counsel completely misrepresented a plea bargain to anilliterate defendant the guilty plea must be vacated."

In Henderson v Morgan (1976) 426 U.S. 637:

"Defendant who was not informed of critical elements of the offense to which heplea guilty entered his plea involuntary."

In U.S. v Brown ( 1997) 117 F3d 471; Ames v New York (1984) 593 F. Supp. 972:

"Defendant misinformed on the elements (no Distinction) is entitled torelief."

In Gpdd,y _v,_,1JZnahp_v1 (1986) 780 F2d 935:

"Defendant who wasFilliterate and possessed minimal mental capacity wasfound to have entered guilty plea involuntary because he did not understand theelements." ***

Because of LFkCLS, NINE, TWECVE, THIRTEEN(,B^n The judge made not

distinction on the plea petition and accepted the plea petition and order

without personally addressing defendant and failed to comport with O.R.C.

2M.74 et al. as to the determination on the degree of crime or any factual

basis for the plea. In II.S. v McCarthy, ( 1969) 394 U.S. 459:

"Failure of a judge to personally address the defdnant to dtermine thatplea was made voluntary with an understanding of the charges and with factualbasis to the charges."

There is no clear understanding of what charges is being plead to by the

flawed plea petition and the judges failure to comport with O.R.C. 2945.74 et

al, showing that defendant was not personally addressed as to the degree of

crime or factual basis for the plea.

In ^a^_v.^Linahan ( 1986), Supra,

"Defendant receives real notice of the charges when he has been informed ofthe nature of the charges to whcih he is pleading guilty and its elements.Hendei:pa p _y Moraan 426 U.S. at 645-647, 96 S.Ct. at 2258-2259, this is sobecause aplea of guilty r`epresents in essence an admission as to each andevery elemetn of the offen'se see Mc^r^y^v^ 394 U.S. 459,466, ( 1969), 'inaddition the defendant should understand how his conduct satisfies thoseelements UAS._ v F^2 738 F2d 196,197 ( 1984). Gad_ axT _L„i^^f, supra, [16-19] atthe very 1east due process requires that the defendant priar to tendering aplea of guilty, receive a des'cription of the critical elements of the charge,such as the elements defining the intent`. *** An explanation of criminal"inte'ntis necessary becaus`e intent is a complex concept not readily understandable bylayman. Though a rote reading of the indictmenii'if it did not hold dup]icitymay be sufficient to put' a defendant on notice of the elements of chargedcircurr:stances *** r's inadequat'e when the defendant has minimalintelligence, the charges is to complex and the sentence to' be imposed i`s'substantial.

John W. Henderson, judge one of the judge`s 'i'n' this case be'c'ame' aware 'of the

defendant substanti'a1 rights of being LEGALLY INN®CENT to the hi'ghe'r charge i'n'

7

the indictment a'nd guilty of aTesser charge wtien he became aware of, FACTq

FYy_E SIX wh'ich showed a domesf4c sifuation and an involuntary act, described

that "the first shot went 'i'nto the ground as a res'u1t of the defendant havi'ng a

seizure. So the court on record was awar'e of the le'sser' included offense

involuntary act of defendant and his 'sfate of min'd 'and i'ntelligence,. In the

case of State v Grimslet (1982) 3 O.A. 3d 265, 444 N.E.2d 1071:

"A reflexive or convulsive act is not a voluntary act and thus cannot bethe basis'for criminal liability:"

In StA_tp_v_Wi1k'i_ns (1980) 64 Ohio St 2d 382,388:

[6] "If under any reasonable view of the evidence it is possible for the trierof fact to find the defendant not guilty of the greater offense and guilty ofthe lesser offense, the instruction on the lesser included offense must beconsidered in light most fav_ora^bl_esto^defondant. I

Involuntary is defined in State,_ v_-Drem (1988) 40 Ohio St. 3d 205, Para. 3 of

syllabus; State y_Thooas (1988) 40 Ohio St. 3d 213,

In LFACT _SE11EN-1 Judge John W. Henderson, over the case became i11 and was

replaced by judge, Gerald F. Corig, on July 24, 1978, the very same day of

judge accepted the flawed plea petition by order outside court room. See Nagi-,y

U S (6th Cir 1996) 9 F3d 130; Stat.p-:v J:ohneon (6th Cir. 1992) 979 F2d 396,398:

"Plea agreements must be on the record in open court."

It was attorney for defendants duty to make the newly assigned judge aware

of the defendants mental history, state of mine, and the defendant being

illiterate as well as to the evidence to the lesser degree of crime all

described in , [FACTS FIVE SIX ] The circuit courts have had no difficulty in

finding prejudice in sentencing proceedings where counsel failed to present

pertinent evidence of mental history and mental capacity At:

_POnrJ--v Lxnauoh (1989) 109 S.Ct. 2934,2956; Brewer-y Aiken Ste,pheU vKem-p 846 F2d 642, 652-655 (ii Cir). Cert. Denied 109 S.C.T 189 (I988); Theresulting prejudice is clear, Branco nSinolgtur,x 943 F2d at 1505 (Prejudicerequirewments clearly met by counsels failure to present evidence of epilepticseizures and organic brain damage, Lq^d v Whitlg^ 977 F 2d 149, 159-160 (5th

8

Cir 1992) cert denied 113 S:Ct. 2343; 0'N„W_y MrArtnch (1995) 115 S.C.t. 992.

In relation to the plea [ FACTS NINE, TEN, ELEVEN, & TWELVE ]... The defendant

waived a three judge panel as to a hearing, but did NOT waive the single judge

court to his duties under O. R^C_ 2RQ1_.?1, 2901_.22 ,F294_5.J 4945,R5^and

29n._78q as described earlier the judges journal entry accepts a flawed plea

petition and the j udge just did not comport with his duties under statutes but

made his entry contrary to law.

The constitution does not give judges jurisdiction but capacity to receive

jurisdiction by STATUTES, Stevens v State 3 Ohio St 453. The legislature

created R.C. 2945.74 as mandatory in the criminal prosecutions & Sentencing A

Judgments of defendants. It is a matter of ORGANIC SUBSTANTIVE LAW, State v

G&ols,X 245 N.E.2d 742; State _v_ Wo1fg 187 N.E.2d 658. See, Goodtaw_ 5iLte (1865)

16 Ohio St 344 at 345:

"It is well settled that whatever is Prescribed by the constitution andLAWS of the state to be done in prosecutions for ~crimes is essential to theJURISDICTION and POWER of the court to CONVICT and CANNOT neither be OMITTED,NOR waived."

The defendant recognizes certain laws cannot be contracted to and that

although the three judge panel was waived, the SUBSTANTIAL law overrides the

procedural rule, in which a STATUTE has substantial rights attached and

defendant did NOT waive the single judge court and the single judge couri:'.had a

duty to comport.with statutes: O.R.C. 2901.211 2,1&.22^ 2945,,74. 2945.75 and

2995 J8 See following cases, State v Beasle,r (1984) 14 Ohio St. 3d 74; State v

Simpkins (2008) 117 Ohio St. 3d 420; Harveyw BentJ ex (1991) 74 O.A.3d 380; It

says in, STATE V PERRY (1967), 10 Ohio St 2d 175:

"Any attempt by a court to disregard mandatory statutory requirements of aproceeding regarding jurisdictional duties by mandatory statutes rendering theattempted proceeding void, even if the court believes it is acting upon there(auest of the accused."

9

A statutory deficient sentence is considered void, State exLrel Cr^^ado_y

Zaleski 111 Ohio St.3d 353; Defendant have a liberty interest in a correct

sentence, 64 Ohio St. 3d 421; Am Jur. 2d 537 Unauthorized sentence. A judgement

by a court must conform strictly to statutory provisions and any variation,

either in the character or the extent of the punishment imposed renders the

judgement ( Sentence) void. Note 63, WEEMS V U.S. 217 U.S. 349, 30 S.Ct 544,

judgements and sentence 525-587, Am. Jur.2d 525. In a sense sentence is

originally synonymous with judgement and denotes the actions of a court ***."

Even with the plea of guilty the single judge court still had to determine the

degree of crime, See, 27 O.Jur.2d §71 Page 614; State v Ta,y.Jor (1972) 30 Ohio

App. 2d 252,256 Speaking on, R.C.2945.74:

"[258], The court should not enter a judgment 0(Sentence) upon defendantof guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea."[259], "The purpose of the statute is to insure that the defendant not besentence on a plea of more gravity than the evidence will support."

fiayasJ^ (1972) Supra, says it is at the heart of due process. See also,

Speigner v, Jago ( 1979 C.A. 6th), 603 F2d 1208. As to [FACT EIGHTEEN I the

defendant filed a Dq Novo Resentencing Motion to correct judgement 0 Sentence

on Dec. 13,2010, State prosecution for Ohio failed to respond and judge DOUGL'AS

M. RASTATTER, vaguely overruled the motion. The defendant had a right to a

correct sentence and the judge has abused his power and denied the defendant a

De Novo Re-sentencing hearing, which defendant had a right to the judge to

comport with those statutes to the lesser degree of crime when he is legally

innocent of the higher charge, and the judge should comport to finalize the

matter.

Because of LEACT FOURTEEN J R[FACT SEVENTEEN ], defendants attorney Ronald

Galluzzo stripped defendant of an adequate remedy of appeal. Due process is

offended when defendant is kept completely ignorant of his appellate rights.

WoJfe y_ Raodlo (2003) 267 F.Supp. 743,747. and in [FACT FIFTEEN ] the state of

DE3

Ohio ThroughOhio Public Defenders denied defendant advq,uateounse,] for his

arguable merit Because of [FACTS SIXTEEN, SEVENTEEN, & EIGHTEEN ] The defendant

was denied his transcripts because of his indigence while the transcripts

existed. and the courts destroying those transcripts while the court was on

NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS NEED to use the transcripts for an appeal,and this also,

prevented the defendant by the STATE OF OHIO p^rqjju_dicg Jj__nvt_ allottny.

dAf?ndant to hay_e dvAdgaua remedv a,t l,^w _

Where there has been obvious reasons for failure for timely appeal refusal

would result in a manifest injustice, State v,Baker (1960), 177 N.E.2d 348;

State vVap _ HoUe (1954) 142 N.E.2d 668; Statg_^Vi^res 226 N.E.2d 245.

MOREOVER, In the United States Supreme Court in ROSS V_MOFFITT (1974) 417 U.S.

600, 94 S.Ct. 2437:

"In his majority opinion justice Rehnquist stated: *** Unfairness resultsonly if indigents are singled out by STATE and denied meaningful access toappellate system because of poverty. [51] Id at 611, and [52] Id at 616."

The STATE OF OHIO just did not have a right to deny defendant transcripts

because of indigency without violating the State and Federal Constitutions Due

Process and Equal Protection Clause, see, griffin__v I1J_ 351 U.S.12 (1956);

Dou,glas v Uifornta 372 U.S. 353 (1963). Jeff Reed, defendant had a right to

those transcripts at the time he requested and put the court on notice and the

STATE OF OHIO has violated an adequate remedy by way of appeal to certain

errors and produce certain evidence in these facts to his legal innocence. Cook

to,Gr„gen v Brig„ano (S.D. 1995) 904 F.S. at 675, and (C.A. 6th Cir 1997) 123 F

3d 917. The court was on Notice in Mr. Reeds case and defendant needed those

transcripts before they destroyed them. They prejudice the defendant and the

evidence presented in [FACT FIVE AND SIX] should be most favovable to the

defendant on the degree issue, since it clearly shows evidence of the lesser

offense and the state prejudice defendant by the destruction of those

1:1

transcripts of the competency hearing and sentencing.

There was not finalization in defendants case and this procedendo is an a

ALTERNATIVE REMEDY since the defendant was continuously deprived of an adequate

remedy at law.

A good case on lack of finality of which the defendant does not even have

an avenue to appeal in this particular case is Procedendo because of no

finality, See Ct^tgo^^^^cxqft 2010 WL' 3529240, if an order or entry judgement

is not a final order the appellate court has no jurisdiction to consider it. So

Procedendo is appropriate as De Novo was appropriate Dec.13, 2010, but was

denied vaguelyoverruling it without facts or law.

Defendant is a lay person is not sure what relief can be given, but the

defendant needs relief for his mental and Physical health. The Ohio Dept. of

Corr. is denying the defendant an AL'TERNATIVE MEDICINE for his liver in which

he found a cure for his liver. It is either against Ohio law or D.R.C. Policy

to use what they term (Research) defendant terms (Alternative Medicine) in

FACT TWENTY_1 Exhibit B.

The defendant seeks relief by some alternative method to cure the manifest

injustice A Miscarriage of Justice In this case.

[ REQUEST FOR RELIEF ] This court could find the plea void or

Unconstitutionally applied; Void because It was not made Knowingly, Voluntarily

or intelligently; or That the defendants Counsel Misrepresented the plea and

the plea is void; or could make the decision on the degree issue your self or

order the lower court to make a decision De Novo on the degree of Crime to the

legal innocence of the higher charge of Involuntary Manslaughter; Or find that

the crime was negligent Homicide and discharge the defendant; or Find that the

time for re sentence is unreasonable delay and just discharge the defendant

since he has served out 33 years. Or find complete discharge on the fact of the

1:5

Miscarriage of injustice involved in the case and continued prejudice by the

STATE OF OHIO per the Ohio Dept. OfReh. & Corr. on the grounds they will not

allow alternative medicine and cannot treat the virus or liver.

The defendant Prays for relief through some form of Alternative relief in

the interest of correcting the Mis^e of Justice and a sign of mercy where

it is absent, Defendant Ranuasts Relief,

RespectfullyrY

Jeff P49 w )\A152 91 BeP. 0. 40St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of this complaint was sent to the

Clark County Prosecutor D. Wilson c/o Andrew Picek, to 50 E. Columbia St 4th

floor, Springfield, Ohio on,#Ms- _^^__ day of June, 2011.

13

A

\C

ME; (1 9

Office of the Ohio Public Defender8 East Long StreetColumbus. Ohio 43215-2998 www.opd.ohio.gov

(614) 466-5394

DAVID H. BODIKER Fax (614) 752-5167

State Public Defender

September 12, 2007

Mr. Jeff Reed#152-241Ross Correctional InstitutionP.O. Box 7010Chillicothe, Ohio 45601

Dear Mr. Reed:

Over the years, you have communicated with attorneys from this office regardingyour claims. Sadly, our attorneys have found your claims with arguable merit anddeclined to represent you. I will not reopen your case to review those same claims

again.

Sincerely,

ohn A. BayChief CounselLegal Division

JAB/rmt#263897

N AN°Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correctional ! ^ ^ , n

1050 Freeway Drive NorthColumbus, OH 43229

Ted Strickland, Govemor www.drc.state.oh.us

Institution: RQ Date: August 19, 2010

Inmate: Jeff Reed A152241

Ernie L. Moore, Director

T'ne Bureau of Medical Services (BOMS) has been forwarded your letter addressed to the State Medical Boardrelated to your medical concern (s) regarding your health care delivery at the Ross Correctional Institution. Pleasenote I have contacted your Health Care Administrator for a review of your particular concerns. Apparently you arewell known to the medical staff and your concerns. My review indicates you are being provided appropriatemedical care and monitoring for your healthcare needs. As far as alternative treatment for Hepatitis C is concernedthat would be considered research and we are not authorized to do hwnan subjects research on our inmatepopulation. At this time I find no action that requires any type of emergency intervention by the BOMS. The issueyou present needs to be addressed at the institutional level by the Health Care Administrator. In the future you willneed to follow the grievance process as outlined in AR5120-9-31. The BOMS reviews and responds to mmatemedical issues at the central office level through the inmate grievance process. Please follow this grievance processto have your concerns addressed in a timely manner.

Sincerely,

Ramon Perez, RN, MPH ^

Medical Education Manager

Bureau of Medical Services

CAlil ul l I

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICESFOR CLARK COUNTY

(ClARK COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM)

CRIS'1S LINE 322-5433

• INPATIENT SERV{CES • EMEP.GENCY SERViCFS • PARTIAL HOSPITALIZATION

• OUTPATIENT SERVICE • CONSULTATION AND EDUCATION

PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION

NAME: Jeff Reed

MENTAL HEALTH UNIT1345 FOUNTAIN BLVD.

PHONE t517D^ 799- '5'DD '

OUTPATSENT & SATELLITE SERVICES

7B35 MIRACLE MILE ROADSPRtNGFIELD, OHIO A5507PHONE (513) 399-405D

CONSULTATION AND EDUCATION1&15 MIRACLE MILE ROADSPRHOH FlUELD. OHIO AS=

EXMINER: Harold Fishbain,_M.D. i

C,A.gE #78-CR-86 DATE DICTATED: 6/7/78 -

REFERRED BY: The Honorable John W. HendersonCommon Pleas Court of Clark County, Ohio

Jeff Reed has been referred by the Clark County Common Pleas Court, having plednot guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity to the charges and specificationsin the indictment found in the case. He is being examined under Sections 2945.37and 2945.40 of the Ohio Revised Code. Jeff Reed was examined by me on twooccasions in the Clark County jail, each time for approximately one hour. Inaddition to this, his father was interviewed for approximately 45 minutes in my

office at the Mental Health Center.

Both times Mr. Reed was seen, several behaviors were noted (although not to asgreat a degree on the second visit) : 1) that he wanted to make sure the deputywas not within hearing distance, and, 2) that the important thing he had to tellme was that he had another brain and that "Stevie is a person that talks.to me."He stated he never sees Stevie, but he hears him. On both interviews Mr. Reedwent through the above behaviors and tried to come back to them during the inter-view,'but eventually would become more relaxed and begin to talk relevantly andrationally. During the interview he often appeared as if he did not understandthe questions, or even hear them, but with persistence the question was finally

comprehended and he would usually reply in some manner. His affect during theinterview appeared usually to be blunted and not appropriate to what was beingdiscussed. Also during the interview, he often mentioned that he had seizuresand blamed them for some of his behaviors that were being discussed. In additionto that, he often made reference to having used drugs---usually acid and what hetermed "morphine". Additional information and further questioning revealed thatwhat Mr. Reed was calling morphine was actually his father's Talwin tablets and

that he had not used acid in recent months.

Mr. Reed knew that he was being charged with murder of a sheriff's deputy andthat he was not on acid that day, but was on "morphine". During his second inter-view he stated that the Talwin did not affect him in the usual way and that evensnorting didn't help. In the past it had "made my head float like in outer space."

He stated that he would be locked up if he was found guilty.

LnniD111 ^_ ,'-[

Jeff ReedPsychiatric EvaluationJune 7, 1978Page - 2

When asked to relate his experiences around the time of the event, he stated thathe couldn't remember and that he was having continual flashbacks. When askedwhat he was remembering in the flashbacks, he stated he remembers getting a gun atthe house and that he started running scared. It was after I talked with hisfather that I was able to get more information about his relationship with BettyJo, 17 years old. This relationship was very important to Jeff, and the girlhad informed him that he was not responsible enough to raise a child. He statedthat this represented a significant disappointment and loss to him and precipitatedseizures, which he stated often made him violent. As he related details of theevent, he remembered that he was in an automobile and that people were pointingguns at him and he was being arrested. He claimed that he had fired the gun intothe ground, and that this accidental firing was the result of his starting to havea seizure. He then went on to say that somebody by the name of Randy actually did

the shooting.

When I asked him what the courtroom would be like or what he anticipated when hegot into court, he said that he would be in a room with a man that hates him. WhenI inquired about this, he felt that this was the judge and the people sitting

there (it turned out later that he was referring to the jury). He knew there

would be lawyers in there and then agreed one would be a prosecuting attorney.

Past history included a normal birth and normal childhood until about age fiveyears, when he showed the first evidence of epilepsy. He was a slow learner inschool, usually because he wasn't comprehending. He was in a special class.During his junior high school years the issue of epilepsy became more important,and he was started on medication by Dr. Hardman for seizures and hyperactivity.According tb the father, he had exhibited no behavior problem before,this. Heoften became violent before, during, and after his seizures; e.g., breaking intocabinets, threatening behaviors. He was seen in Juvenile Court four times.

His father stated that he likes to hunt and th-is accounts for his owning a shot-gun. A previous examination before he became eighteen was done for the JuvenileCourt, at which time he was treated as a,juvenile for a robbery charge.

His father then went on to state that he had become involved with a girl and hada close physical and intimate relationship with her and that this may have beenan event that precipitated his behavior at the time that charges were broughtagainst him, allegedly shooting the deputy. His father stated that he had beenevaluated at Dartmouth Behavioral Center in Dayton for SSI benefits and was toldthat he had organic brain damage as well as epilepsy. Father also states that

he does not manage his own money.

The father also described Jeff's recent behavior as getting worse, being moreparanoid (locking his room, thinking that people were in the house, and keepingthe shotgun and pistol in the house much of the time) . Then, ane week before theevent, the girl broke up with Jeff, after which he got quite violent and upset.

Jeff Reedpsychiatric Evaluation

June 7, 1978Page - 3

He was quite possessiveof this girl, and the father stated that the girl became

quite afraid of him.

SiJMMARY :

In the interviews, Mr. Reed stated that he often did not remember the detailssurrounding the event; that he was having flashbacks and when asked about what hesaw in his flashbacks was able to give some information; that he stated that hewas having hallucinatory experiences but could alternately comprehend and under-stand most of the questions that I asked; that some of his answers were "I don'tremember"; that he had a history of having seizures, taking medication and beingon disability as a result; that his electroencephalogram reads that in additionto epileptic foci he had organic brain damage; that he has a history of violentand unpredictable behavioral episodes and has been threatening and destructive inthe past; that he has a history of having been in the juvenile court system ox"atleast four occasions. He gives a history that determined that he had a verysignificant relationship with a girl prior to the event, which was broken off,and was, therefore, quite catastrophic for him. He also admits to using hisfather's Talwin tablets and has been in the habit of using other drugs in the

past.

IMPRESSION:

This young man has epilepsy, possibly chronic organic brain damage. His basicpersonality is that of an inadequate person. He is what I would call a border-line person, which means that he has a potential for being psychotic; that he isnot psychotic at the time of the interviews; and that he is competent to stand

trial. I

3̂' 1^' ^^ H.9HAROLD FISHBAIN, M.D.Forensic Center Director

ADDENDUMS TO FOLLOW:A) Psychological Testing Results (Current)B) Dartmouth Behavioral Sciences Center Evaluation

HF/nlp

=. - - CERTIFIED COPY

C(erk

Cl Canry Ohioa o,L/ -, Deputy

'Pp EN L^1X

/o3s 5a4. re've^qayt,x, Cr(ta 45406

October 25, 1977

John E. Hastings,'M,.D,Bureau of Disability DeterminationRehabilitation Services CommissionExecutive Sq., 4574 Heaton Rd.Columbus, Ohio 43229

;Dk„rc 513-27s-791?

'S,E; Jeff Reed808 AspenNew Carlisle, OH 45344

Dear Dr. Hastings:

Pursuant to your request, Jeff Reed was seen for neurological

constxltation on October 25, 1977..

IDENTIFICAT20N Or THE CASE:

This eighteen year ol,d, white male apparently began having

objective seizures approxi:mate7,y six years ago. There is some

question that earlier in life, perhaps, he also had some minor

episodes but this was never fully documented. Early in his

butyears, the patient was put on Ritalin, ut after thea.^

seizures started he was placed on Dilantin and then Phenobarbital

and Dilantir.. Episodes start with a twitching of the left s:-de

of the face and jerking of the leftarm.. This, then, may progress

to loss of consciousness.^ He has had rare tongue biting, but has

"^-° The atient also has minorneve'`' 3 urinar"}'incontiience. p

episodes which consist of a twitching or contracture of the left

^ ^,..side of his face and some drewling. During these times, he may or,

ot lose. contact with his environ-nen.t After the episode, the

may n ctedotra«is noted to be dysarthric and may have p

pat^,ent a, times,

.®._----•-,-^^^-ME,ABEPS OF THL OIUG HOSPITAL ASSJCIATIONMEMBERS OF THF AMLf110.9N HOSPITHL ASSOCIATION

PRIVATEOF THE N!1TIONAL HSSDCIHTION OI` RI VATF PSYCHIATRIC FIOSPITA15

HCCR[UIl'ATECI 6Y THL J()IN i OONiMLb10N ON P.CCRE.DITLN:ON OP HOSPITALS

BDD -. Jeff Reed1' age 2

episodes of drowsiness and 7,assi;tudeo The patier,t was always a

slow learner in school and had great difficulty rn getting through

school. At the prese:lt time, the patient has one to two major

episodes a week and has daily tlinor episodes described above. Since

the patient has been more or less on medication since the onset, there

is no way to compare the effect.s of ined'z,cation. The patient's father

feels that his condition is worsening.

PHY&? 6E.^-g XAl"iINP.TIO!`T :

The patient`s speech is normal. His mental status reveals

normal recall of recent and remote memory. Seria7, numbers are done

fairly good forward up to six numbers and poorly backward. Calculation

is poor.. Patient's affect is essentially normal, although he is not

spontaneous. He does, however, understand all questions and answers

appropriately. Patient's gait is normal. His station is normal.

Cranial nerves are normal throughout. One sma7.l brief episode of

twitching of the left side of the mouth was noted for a few seconds.

Motor and sensory examinations were norma7,. Deep tendon reflexes

were equal and hypoactive bilaterally. No pathological reflexes

were found. Cerebellar testing was not remarkable.

IMPRESSION:

Seizure disorder which, at_ times, is initiated by focal motorseizures ending in grand mal seizures and a second minor typedisorder consistent 7aith part-i;ai, seizures with cognitive andminimal focaJ, motor episodes. Etiology is not apparent frompatient's history. The history would suggest that this is an

acquired disorder.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION;

The patient's mental status is described above. The patient's

daily activities are greatly restricted because of the frequent

seizur.e episodes. He is unable to hold a job and had great difficulty

in attending school. From observation, I would think that at the

BDD ^ Je,ff ReedYage. 3

present time, the claimant would not be able to manage any

granted benefits. The history, type, and frequency of seizures

and response of, treatn4ent are described above.

Very Tru7.y Yours,

EBL/md

P

/^a 4^70-7L_EUGENE S. CHERRY, Ph.D.

PSYCHOLOGISTfAfi OAKS BLDG. • SUITE 11s118 - 2801 FAR HILLS AVENUE • DAYTON, OHIO 45419

BYAPPGINT6fENT(513) 293-0143

PS'ICSDLCGICAL REP017f

NAME: Jeff Reed DATE OF E9ALDATIOt4: 10-13-77

ADDRESS: 808 Aspen DATE OF BIRTH: 5-16-59

New Carlisle, nhio L543L AGF.: 18

REFRRRAI. SpIIRCR: Jeff Reed was referred by the Bureau of Disability

Determination for the purpose of obtaining a Diagnostic PsychologicalEvaluation. An evaluation of current intelligence as well as emotion-

al stability 'was requested.

(1) Wechsler Ad1+lt Intelligence Scale

Verbal IQ.Score - 77Perfomiance IQ Score ' 79Fuil Scale IQ Score . 76

(2) Wide Range Achievement TestReading S^andard Score ° 60Spelling Standard Score ° 60Arithmetic Standard Score . 614

(3)

(L)

Bender-Gestalt

Rorschach Psychodiagnostic

(5) Draw-A-Person

ZNTERVIFd AND TF.ST OBSERVATIONS:

Jeff is a tall, thin boy who when we firs`. got together was quitepassive and would answer questions in the shortest possible way. Jeffwas accomoanied by his father and when the examiner saw both father andson together in the waiting room, Je:f's father would not let Jeff saya word. Mr. Reed is a corstant compulsive talker who dominates alrostall conversation. The exan^iner deten.iined early to insure that Jeffand his father :rocld not be seen togetner and as testing and evalnat.ion

continned through the afternoon Jeff became progre.ssively niore assertive

and comfortable in his perfbrrrance of tasks. Jeff has had learningproblems as long as he has been ir. school. itis father reports Jeffbet.inning to have nroblems with petit nal seizures iri the sixth gradeand these seizures have become more and more serious as time r.entinues.Presen!ly Jeff reports having grand mal seizures of varyine levels ofintensity two to three times a day. Jeff is remairing at home and notattempting work ar.d doine very little around the house in order toreduce his emotional stimulation to a minimum. Reducing his stimulationdoes seem tohe:n and he under these circ:m:stances experiences fewer

seizures.

CAI]1I51 I Le,^

i

Exhibit G-4

pape 2 - Jeff Reed

_ None or these incidents

r•ee.m to hr that serious and Jeff secm^d to b^ ont. nf the houseand tryi n;; to ^,et, nut on his ,.Lr. in each of these situations. Th.,. not •rosul.t of cach of these lncidents is that. Jeff has tn stay home wit.h

h+,yparent.-; ,a 1^nr!,r pcri^d nf' t]mn. . .The exarniner formed the inpression in talking with deff that he is

involved in a verp symhintic rrl,t.innship with his pnrents especiallyhis father(who is also disabled) and fnr him to maximiae his abilities 'and potential that he needs to slowly and conSortahiy begin to devclop

Itis own identity and person.

TSS""S R.RS'tT,TS: ' ' . .

wATS -,^Jeff Reed was administerdPetherformance IQAof 791andla Pulle

Scale and obtained a Verbal ZQ of 77; a

Scale IQ af 76.

Jeff's Ability Score indicatr.s tFat he is fnnr.tionin in the borderline me.ntal y retarded ranae of intellectual functianing. This is.an

eun er^st.imste or is true a ity wmch is in tne average rang. JeFfdoes part,ir.ularly well in tasks involving higher level functioninr such

as Comprehension, Simil.=.rities, Block âesign and Pictnre Arrangement.

More routine detailed types of activity involvinC p.^^homot.or coordinationand readinr, are areas in which his performance definitely deteriorates;Jeff anpe.ars to have brain damage to the right side specific to some

sort of ys exlc pro em __

',lRAT - Jeff Reed was administered the Wide Bange Achievement Test

and obtained the.following scores: .

Score Grade Std. Sca_re pileZZ ^ below

Reading Z 6 6o below'1$Snelling 6^ 1Arithmetic 1.5

Jeff's.Achievement Scores are markedly lower than his AbilityScores and in general indicate his dysiexic problems. The examiner feelsthat even though Jeff is limited in his ability to handle verbal symbolsthat he could fnnction a', a higher level than he currently does.

BP;dDFR-CrSTAi.T: •

Jeff's 13ender-Gestalt drawings give a clear indicat.ion that hisproblems clearly are not involving the left.side of his brain. Hisdrawings are sharp,clear and well organized in their presentation on

_ the sheet. There are no indications from ,ieff's drawings on the Render-Gestalt of any organic involvment nr performance types of tasks.

RORSCi1ACH:

Jeff's Rorschach fivas a good idea of many of his psycholopical

problems associated with his nhysical conditinn. Jeff see.ms to be

Pr.iational concern and feelin?s in his somaticexpressing most of hiss}miptams. Jeff seems unahle to talk about many of his stronp, frelingsto his father in terms other than his physi^ai conPlaints. S,ecifically

4

Page 3 _ Jeff Reed

Jeff in his responsr., su;;f^st that, he feels open to t.he world in termsoP ph,vsical injury and he has little to offer ot.her than a she7.l of hisbodv. r,lrarly another pictnrn of Jeff emerges from the florschar.h in-that hr is nuite creative and intellipent. He gives excr.7.lr.nt., clearand well defined rerponses on cards which are associated with emational

affective stimulation. Jeff functions much better with a supportive,accepting adult and with a person wno 'oelieves arri thinkshigiily of him.

Jeff on thn Rorxhach gives clear indication of his much higher ability

as well as his primary defenses against an almost too clean relationship

with his father.

SimiMARY AA^D R7r.CWMSNDATIOT7S:• ' . .

Jeff is a ynung boy who has a great deal of ability and nneds towork ont his Beparation with his parents in order to optimi7e his funct-ioning within the contraints of having a brain damaged condition. Jeffis v=ry dPpendently oriented atxi finds it difficult to function independ-ently on his own.His appearance is acceptable and agreeable. Jeffseens to have constricted interests because of having to control hisactivities because of.his intense seizures which he has currently been . '

experiencing. Ability wise Jeff seems to be.able to sustain his attent-

ion to perform routine repetitive tasks. He cannot perform as rapidly

ber.auseoP his psychomotor coordination problrms. Currently Jeff is un-able to withstand the pressure associated with unskilled labor. âFe

needs tn further separate from his parents in order to withstand suchoressure. Jeff could "not achieve production rr..;nirements in a satisfactory

manner but could communicate with a supervisor. Jeff shonld have no

difficulty in any dimension of instructions given by a supervisor. Theexaminer does feel that JeCf would need some supervi.sion in managing hisown affairs but he has sufficient ability to manage his moncy.

Diagnostic impression is Chronic Brain Syndrome associated with

Epilepsv and Dyslexia.

Eugene S. Cherry, Ph.D.Psychologist

CoQnc!_ %=cV_ F1- -1 '-Eic*dk^^t, , ,

IN THE COURT OF CUMM.ON PLEAS

CLARK C4UNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO Case No. 78-CR-86

ltespond-ant

APPLICATIUN FOR TRANi_:CR1PT

Jeffrev D. ReedNetitioner,Defendant

taf_'ii 1DN:

Now comes, Jeffrey D. Reed Petitioner, Deferda.nt in the

above styled ==.Se, requesting this rour't to rule on the

Petitioner's ri for Tra.nscript c, f "Trial transcript ot

the oorket ar J ourna.l entrle=_, !'alth such origin._.i pa.o er_. nr.

transcript_. as nece4se.rY to e:?hibit the error=_. cnmpla.ired of; arcd

for sa.i d i tems to be paid from the State of l:lh I o or r,(^^? t7'a

Treasurer due to the Defende.nt-Petitioner's irdiaency. ;,Z, ' w

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

a,."7o interpose an,/ f i nanc i a.l cons i d-erat i on Getvaee^^^an indigent prisoner of the 3;t.ste and his ^:o c:6

^c tpexercise of a. State Right to sue for hi=. lit.ertYis to deni' that prisoner the equal protection ofthe laa.^." SMITH VS. BENNETT, 365 U.S. 708,^^.<,^... .

'This Petitioner is seeking to sue for his liberty by

exercising a State Right to a direct appeal of his criminal

conviction, pursuant to Ghio Revised Code Chapters 2'7-'53, 2505,

and App.N. 4(B); and refusal of this Court to order this indigentto be furn i shed 4.1i th the reque=_.t,;,.%} ,.oul d i n terposa a, f i nanc i e.l

consideratirn bet:.een this petitioner and his exercise or said

:_tate kl4ht to a direct appeal, and the same :aould be to deny.

this petitioner'a riqht to equal protection of the la,..

ihe Griffin-Douqlaa (Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12,1956), and Douglas v. California, 372 U.S.353, 1963), rationalehas been e:tended to require the State to furnish the indigent

1

de+endant ;ai th trarscr i pts of '..'ar iou_. prnceedi r9_. ^:?here needed toIRipiefrient defenda.nt'=_. r'IahtS. A serle=. of ce.=_.e5 he.ve +c'und .x

denial ,- _̂+ equal pr'-t:'--rt i rn in the te' = _ re+u^_ .^.1 to F^ro'.,^ide ?.n^ v^tc.

i nd i a=.nt de+erid an t.e.pplicant V? Ith a transcript o+ v.3riou=_.-̂ -' 2procc'edin'a= rrrm aahich apF'ea.l _ w er:- t a.k e n . L...r e ': . E r. ot::m , ,.

U. S. 4:71' ( 1 ^'a,_,;;) {c c' r-a.m nc't'i _ h^a.riro)t Lc'n0 '.. G1s trict i_ourt,-___ _I.- 1;a1 i.i'7•_v;) tcr,ram riot'i=_ hearinq); h9.^.y^r I_:i^Ira.Up 44i=?

U. 16'? f19?1) rt•iisdealcw trla l). Appellant re'.'iew .:a __. notnece=_.s,?.rilY conditional on the pre--entation r+ a tran=.cript in

these c a_._ ., t'ut the tran_cript :aa_ readi I;` _.: ^.i lable a.nd 1.a .^. _:o =_ ^obviousl'r the pre+er.a ble mc a ri- +nr pre=.erting a.n a c=ount rf *.h«vho I e rela.vent prc'ceedinqs. Lrng . Die.trict C:ourt, =_.upraCompa.re PJnrvel I':!. II I inc'is, 373 U.S 420 ( 1y•::;). The Court has

no+'=- +"-tP rna.;` its equal protectirn obligatinn_^-'^ that the -L; -^^'= ,^^e..rl=_ ^. ^. _

b y. pra':, i d i ng an ^.= I tern.Ri; _

y

^ i°-^)'=i tinci tr.ic.1 rrr.=t'edin_'=

-`ipul.9ted =ta.temert ri + -F.acts), but c'nl; it the alterna.tive"pl.;rrs t':'-Fc'rr- the appe I late crurt an equlva.lerit report of thef.•.ct5,'events at trla.l trom Whlch the appella.nt`'_. c'cntentirn canbe a^__.erta.ined. C!ra.oer I,,,Shinrtc'n, c^-_ H.S. 420 [17 ocl).

1rJhere the grc'urd_ ot appe.xl "mc'.Ke out a colerat'Ie need +or a.complete tr.7.n=_.cript Cdeferd?.nt conter,d=_. that the evider'=e vaa.s

in=_.uTticient tor con.,'ictic'n), the burden of proof i=- nn theva...te to e.ha..a tf.g.t rnl;r a pc'rtion of the transcript or a.n

a. l t e r n ._.̂ t v.ll -.l I U ti c -- +rr 3n ef+ect i ve 3p C^ o .a. l c, ri tri^'_.8i .'.^ _-'qrc,urd_., p,t..yer Ch i c:•.'cc', supra.

c Gri'c. J;.V_il_, :a.nd

IJriln-F•o3t-Cnn'..'ic'tion i?:erried::/ ._.=t. _Vhu=- 1t =-.nc'uId be app.=r=n+that the c'rincipl'es cited, =.upra., supplv to this inst.-.nt ca.use.

rcn,: deci=_.ion denyirig said recrrds, viouIdt:ah011 v denv anf r I uht tn appea.l ( l.os `-Conviction re'.'ieaa) ±n thie imprc'verished

de+end.y.nt, but er+orce that right only+nr de+endants _.ble to pay tor theirtranscripts e.nd to prepare their brie+tc' support their contentic'ns. Yhis i=_ anurire._.=_.oned d i = - t 1 nc t i On a.th I ch the Four-teentf'i Amendment +orbid=-. the State tc, m.ake.Gri++in v Illir;ois supra; Dr-aper vb:lashington, supra; EsKridqe v . L,.la=_.hiratc'n^57 U.S. 2`14; L.lilliams v. iil%1ahoma. Cit::

4°^=;• and Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.E.^'i .5 U.S. ^ . ^``_.:'.

-ihis petitioner requests said r_cords for the purpose that

they are needed to prepare his 6rlef to support his crn tenti ons

on direct appeal of his criminal conviction. To denX this

f'etltloner such records udnuld be to apply the same unreasona.ble

distinction which the Fourteenth Amendment forbade the States to

dr, i n the v.uthor i t i ea c i ted, =_.upra..

f1^D.Ree^ ^11 152-241^eb.•.novpf Cnrr._ctiora.l lnstitution

PoSt Office Box 56Lebanon, Ohio 45016

t , Jeffrey D. Reed

document was mailed to the Prosecuting +';ttorne'r's office on

certlf;' that the tnr'eGoing iega.l

da; of i Vi

the

^egaQ ^( iVisiou^nl auPa ^ones

Supenuison ^ega4 ^Depantment

cltpe nt tomouNank Countg CPente o t CouktS CanoQ Nincent

Cl+ied ^Deputy CPentz

Count ot CoMMon' TQeas aud Couat ot (-4ppeaQs canaee ceankCQahk Coutaty Couht c34ouse s°pe°°s°"

- S'phit^g^ieQd, Cl1io 45502

DlovemUer 30, 1989

Mr. Reed;

Please be advised that if you are trying to obtain a copy of t.'-le

transcript from your plea, you will need to contact the judge's

court reporter.

You should address the request to the Judge's office in care ofthe court reporter.

If we can be of further assistance to you, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Ronald E. Vinqent, Clerk

^^^^-^

Judith L. Pierce, RMROfficial Court Reporter

101 North Limestone StreetSpringfield, Ohio 45502

Mr. Jeffrey D. ReedA152241P. O. Eo'^c 57Marion, Ohio 43301

Dear Mr. Reed:

September 29, 1995

I have received your lett:er of Septemt,::r 19, 1995, requesting a

tr-^̂n.script of proceedings held July 24, 1978. I am writing to informyou that a transcript of this hearing c=nnot be prepared because thenotes are no longer available. On October 18, 1990, the Judges of theClark Coimty Cccm= Pleas Court put an order on that all records thatare in e.Ycess of ten years be disoosed of annually; therefore, these

notes are no longar in existence.

If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to let rre know.

Sincerely,

th L. Pierce, Rt^uc

:lt,̂c:iya^

Official Court Reporter

EXUBTT^t **irx^ x*********^rx^**t*

a:l¢. 219-F74 .- • , BexxalT /. p S OmORt. etIL16tl^ PRINGPIlID^HL v

Vv..

INDICTMENTCiim. Rule 6, Z

THE STATE OF OFIIO

-------------Clark----• -----°--•----.....-°--------Countb, ss.•

v

. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Of the Term April in the year one thousand nine hundred and

THE JURORS 0E THE GR31ND JURY of the State of 0hio, within and for the

body of the County aforesaid, on their.oaths,'in the name and by the authority of

the State of Ohio, do ftnd and present that on or about the.... 90th ^. ^day

of

March. ..... °°-._..._-19 78°- Cl rk Count ^ Ohia, at ...... - .. .-- •--.. ,Jeff Reed'- --. ^ ^...... ... ..--......... ------------------------------.......... ------- -------------------------•--------.-....-------...---------- ...------. did

. purposelyand with prior calculation and design, cause the death

of Gregory A. Raynor, or purposely cause the deathofGregoryA: Raynor

while fleeingimmediately after committing or attempting to commit

kidnapping, rape, aggravated burglaryor burglary, in violation of

Section 2903.01 of the Ohio Revised Code. -. ^

SPECIFICATION ONE TO THE FIRST COUNT

The Grand Jurors further find and specifythatthe victim of the,

I

offense, Gregory A. Raynor, was a law enforcementofficer,to-wit:

a deputy sheriff of the Clark County Sheriff's Department,.whom thea zz^t .,-f ..w

said Jeff Reed knew to be such and said victim was engaged in his

duties at the time of the offense or it was the offender's specific

purpose to kill a law enforcement officer.

SPECIFICATION TWO TO THE FIRSTCO[jNT

The Grand Jurors further find and specify that the offense was

committed by Jeff Reed for the purpose of escaping detection, apprehension

trial orpunis.`,ment for another offense committed by the offender.

SPECIFICATIONTHREE TO THE FIRST COUNT

. The Grand Jurors further find and specify that the offense was

committed by Jefi Reed while fleeing immediately after committing or

attempting to commit kidnapping, rape or aggravated burglary.

SPECIFICATION FOUR TO THE FIRST COUNT

.__Seventx _E-}ght

committed by Jeff Reed as part of a course of conduct involving the

purposeful attempt by said offender to kill two or more persons.

VOL 06'j PAGE

IN THE 0W17N PLEAS ODURT OF CI11RK ODUNl'Y, OHIO

141E SI`ATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-vs-

JEE'E' RF^D,

Defendant

Case Nimixs: 78 (1t 86

PETITION TO Et.Il'ER PLEA OFQ1I=

The defendant represents to the oouxt: . . . s^

1.)

2.)

(D

My fulltrue nam is Jeffrey Dean Feed.. . .^

I amrepresented by idonald L. Galluzzoand John R. Hutz.

I have been served witha copy...of the indiciinsiit and fhave-':

read itand had it read to me ard explained to ire'by my'attnrneys

and I understand the charges'against msNa

I have discussed the circanstances of the dian7esand othx" .

mtters with my attorneys and believe that my attorneys are fully

informed as to all the facts and circlanstances of the netter.: Asa ....

result, r[iyattorneys have advised me relating tothe nature of the

ckarges against ne and the defenses available to ne. t°d

attorneys have advised mpursuant to Iockett v. Ohio, 46. U.S.

L.W. 4981, No. 76=6997, July 3, 1978, and Bell v. Ohio, 46 U.S.L.W.

4995, No. 76-6513, July 3, 1978, that the pmishmeit for the charge

of aggravated murder is a mixin¢nn of life inprisonvmt and fine of not

toexcee.d $25,000.00, and a maxiums¢ of 15 years imprisonment and a

minuman of 2,3,4, or 5 years inipriso:azm.nt and a-fine of not to exceed

$7,500.00 for the charge of felonious assault. . ./u

6.) My attorney has advised me and I understand that in the event of

sentencing on these charges probation may not be granted to me on

either or both of the charges.

^^I understand that I may plead "Not Oliilty" to any offense charged ^J®

against ire and that if I choose to do so the constitution guarantees ne!

(a) the right to a speedy and public trial, (b) the right to a trial

by a jury, (c) the right to see and hear all witnesses against me and

to cross-examine them, (d) the right to use the paver of process to

cnipel the production of any evidence, including the pov&s to compel

the attendance of any witness in my favor, and (e) the right to have

Q ! `. VOL UF1T PAGE 846

.

B.) I also understand that I nay ctnose to plead "No Cmtest" and

that if so I have not admitted that i am guilty, but Ihave admitted

the truth of the facts alle.gedin the indictmPnt and that the plea and

tte admission that results fzcm the plea may notbe iised against me in

any subsequent civil or esiminalproceedings but that the State of Ohio

nay sukiuit proof of my guilt on such offense by an explanation of the

circunstances and without fomial presentation of evidenae and that I

will not have the right to preseiteviflence on mybPlialf in defense or

tn cross-era<aine any witnesses presenta3 by the pzosecution.

PAGE 848

"(e) (continued) assistance of an attomey in my defense at all

stages in the prncee3ings. I also understand that I cannot be

wmpelled to testify against myself and that at any trial the State

t.ocldhave the burden to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as

tv all oounts and specifications. . ..

9.) I anderstand that I may choose tn plead "NOt(lailty By Reason

of Insanity" and that if I ohoose to so plead I hgve a right to a

speedy and public trial before a jury and all of the other rights

accorded to re if I had pleaded "Not (laitty" and that in addition

the required psroof ofgailt the issue of my legal sanity at the time of

the alleged criaiewill beplacedin issue. After omferring with

my attorneys I hereby withdraw my forner pleas of "Not (ui1ty" and

"Not GUitty by Reason of Insanity".. ...

10.) I understand that I may plead "Guilty" to any or all of the

crimes charged against me and that if I so plead the court may inQose

any of the sane pmishnents that may be iuQosed i.fI stand trial and aR

oonvicte3 by the jury, or by the conrtif I waive a jury trial and the

case is tried tn the court.

I declare thatno officer or agent of any govexnnient (fe3eral; :;i -..^ .. . .

state or local), nor any other person, has made any prcmise or suggestion

of any kind to tre, or to anyone else that has ccme to my knowledge, that

I would receive a lighter sentence, probation, or any other kind of

leniency orpreferred treatrrent if I wvu.ld plead "Gliilty."

12.) The only agreemait or imderstanding on whichI make the following

plea is that specificatinns 2, 3, and 4 to Coimt I of the indic

and Coinits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 of the indietttpnt will be

dismissed. . . ..

13.) I believe that my attorneys have done all tliat coald be done

to advise and assist me and at this time I believe that I understand all

the proceedings against me. . . ^

^ 14.) 1 wish to plead "Guilty" and respectfiil.l.y request the court to

accept myiplea as Goilty as ehazgedin Comt I of the indi.ctxearit, guilty

as eharged in Specification 1 of the ist [bimt of the indictrnait, guilty

as charged in Coimt19 of the indicrimnt.

!LG?

15.) offer my plea of "61Uilty" freely and wlimtarily,of my own

accord and decision, and with a caplete tmderstatrling of theclvzrges

against me, the ptmishment to which I may be sentenced, the effect of

the plea, the matters set forth in this petition, and the effect of the

"Certificate of Counsel" attached.

16.) I request the courtto nav enter my plea of "GlUilty" as set forth

in Paragraph 14, in reliance on the statements I have made in this

Petition. I understand that the Court nay proceed to imnediately

pronomce sentence.

17.) I^specifically waive any oonsiderati.ons or pr.otections which I

may have pursuant to Criminal Role 11(C)(4) regarding inpmelinga,,

three-ju3ge panel for purposes of determining vhetherthe offense was-;-

mtaggravated rmwder or a lesser offense and reguestthe court to ine3iaely

proceed with sentencing.

Signed by me in open wurt and in the presenoa of my attorney this

24th day of July, 1978.

I have read and fully explained to the defendant all of the

The imdersigned, counsel for Jeff Reed, hereby certify:

cQ'Q'IFICATE oF COUN6EL

Th the best o£.my ]mowledge and belief each statemant in the

foregoing petition is in all respects acourate and true.

accusations against him as set forth in the indictrent.

3. The plea of "Guilty" by the defendant accords with my

understanding of the facts as related to ma by the defendant and

is wnsistent with myadvice to the defendant.

4. In my opinion, the plea of "Guilty" offered by the defendant is

wlimtarily and widerstandingly rtede, and I reoamiend that the

court accept it and nowenter it on behalf of the defendant.

Signed by se in open court in the presence of the defendantthis 24th

day of July, 1978.

eAda

VOL 06'J PAGE 849

d^N

Good cause appearing fxoo the foregoing Petition of the Defendant

and the certificate of his cotmsel and franall proceedings heretofore

had in this case, IT IS

OImSftID that the Petition be granted and that Defendant's plea of

"Guilty" be accepted and entered as requested andas reommended by

C,EFALDF.`IARIG, Ju3ge

.- ._

IN THE COURT OF COM140N PLEAS, CLARK COUNTY, OHIO

• .State of Ohio,

Plaintiff, Case No. 78-CR-86

V5.

Jeff Reed, E N T R Y

and was represented by counsel, and having entered a plea of

guilty to count one (1) of the indictment, the charge of

Defendant, •

_ . The defendant herein, Jeff Reed, was this day, to-wit:

July 24, 1978, brought into Court in custody of the Sheriff

Aggravated Murder and to specification one(1) of said charge

ofAggravated Murder, in violation of Section 2903.01 of the

Revised Code of Ohio; specifications two (2.), three (3), and

of the Revised Code of Ohio, counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10

having been dismissed, and upon such plea of guilty, said

defendant was inquired of if he had anything to say why ^udgment

should not be pronounced against him, and showing no.good and

sufficient cause why judgment should not be pronounced, ---

IT IS THEREFORE CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by the

Court that the said defendant, Jeff Reed, be imprisoned and

missed, and a plea of,guilty to count nine (9) of the indictme

the charge of felonious assault, in violation of Section 2903•

four (4) to count one (1) of the indictment having been dis-

confined in the Ohio State Penitentiary, c/o Columbus Correctional

Facility, Columbus, Ohio, for a period of life on count one (1)

of the indictment, and for an indeterminate period of not less

than five (5) years nor more than fifteen (15) years on count

nine (9), there to be kept until he is legally discharged there-

from. Said sentence in count nine (9) is to be served consecutively

with the sentence in count one (1). It is further ordered that the

defendant pay the costs of this case for which execution is hereby

awarded.. The Clerk is ordered t make a eomplete record herein.

APPROVED:

rable Gerald F. Lorig,/udgea141U 'Altlaao );`J','15

ivoaa s7118 rmwyio^^ a/, / kll31'J'.Il;iJ;{!A.':i!1VIpJ

^/^/ ^C^ L^ ^a n atp^ EI ^II 1iV 9l Vif 8161ecuting'Attorney

ppPENDIX D

03llA,v01..)(i! rtiGE 652

ii;

3n fl^e ftunrt nf l^narnnnn FIra^ nf 4^I^rk flnntttg. (t^I^inSTATE OF OHIO

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 78-CR-0086

ENTRY

RASTATTER, JUDGE

Upon a review of the record, defendant's motions filed on

December 13, 2010 are OVERRULED.

s^,...

D^adglas M. Rastatter, Judgele^,

cc:A. WilsonI efendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOSTATE OF OHIO

STATE OF OHIO )) 5s: AFFIDAVIT OF VERITY OF JEFF REED

BEL'MONT COUNTY)

In the matter of procedendo: 1. 1 Jeff Reed, Relator verify that all

the [ facts one through twenty] which I have personal knowledge of are

true and correct. 2. I verify my attorney Ronald Galluzzo did not explain

the details of what the actual elements or charges were or I did not

understand. 3. That I was on S.S.I. Borderline Mentally retarded, 2.2

reading level with epilepsy, organic brain damage and dyslexia. 4. That I

did have seizure and could not drop the gun when Gregory Raynor was shot.

that the matter was involuntary act. Confirm the facts to the seizure in

Dr. Fishbains Report. 5,. That my attorney misrepresentation to telling me

that I would be paroled and my minimum sentence and that i could not

appeal my guilty plea. That the Court denied my transcripts on the

grounds of indigent, and did not answer my motion. 7. that the judge John

W. Henderson knew of the lesser included offense and 8. Judge Gerald F.

Lorig participated in the plea process, accepted the plea by petition and

order outside the court room'. 9. That the defendant did not waive the

Statutes 2945.74 et al as to the lesser degree hearing being held by the

single judge court, and that the judge did not hold the hearing, but just

accepted the plea petition by order and made a journal entry in

accordance with It. The State prosecution refused to respond to the De

Novo Resentencing and Judge Rastatter overruled the matter without any

facts or law.

1of2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOSTATE OF OHIO

STATE OF OHIO )ss: AFFIDAVIT OF VERITY OF JEFF REED

BEL'MONT COUNTY

I JEFF REED, swear under the penalty of perjury that the e^ rs.onal

knowledge I described in this affidavit is true and correct to thebe t

of my knowledge and memory as to the facts. As stat

Charmyn L DotyN0t2ciy Public

n1R4f4 14qblikPMy Commiss9on ExpiresIx- l-^

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and co'rrect copy of this affidavit was sent to

the Clark County Pros'ecutors Office 50 E. Columbia St, Springfield Oh'i'oI

45501, On th'is _$ day of June 2011.

,̂.DR

152241P.O. 8qhc'%540

ONioSt C1ai`rs 'i11ev ,.43950.

2of2

ATTACHMENT NOT SCANNED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOSTATE OF OHIO

STATE OF OHIO )) SS: AFFIDAVIT

BfeMONT COUNTY)

I Jeff Reed Affiant - Relator in this matter Complaint

Procedendo have filed a civil complaint on may 11, 2011, On a

matter where I was denied counsel and prefer this new filing as

to the matter of case no. 78-CR-86, I do not believe I filed any

other civil complaints and believe my De novo Resentencing Motion

was criminal in nature. This will be the last state filing I file

in this matter, unless I receive a pass to proceed otherwise by

this court. The May 11, 2011 filing is case No. 11-0807.

ffid 'thisr' avay thatwear under penalty of perjuI s

and correct to the best of my knowledge.

s true,:iant

rn tUha.o^; ^^^b^,^scribed In my pr-esence on this _3,1_ day /1W, , Zof1

011 N(sYard Publicn and foY the State of ON=;N'iy i,orQ}7asssicn E.xc rcs

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I certify that a t'rue and corre'ct' 'ccpy ®f th'i's` aff'i'davit

was se'nt to the Clark Co'unt'y Pros'ecutor` at 50 E. Columbi'a, it

4th FT®®r, Sp`ringfield, Ohio 45501 on This ;;3_day of june

2011'.

Je f R d,^r seBe. .I 152-241P.O. Box 540St. Clairville, Oh'i'o 4

43950