.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CLARK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2015-CA-70
:
v. : T.C. NO. 06CR1487
:
MICHAEL MOORE : (Criminal Appeal from
: Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the ___8th___ day of _____April_____, 2016.
...........
RYAN A. SAUNDERS, Atty. Reg. No. 0091678, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 50 E.
Columbia Street, Suite 449, Springfield, Ohio 45502
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
GEORGE A. KATCHMER, Atty. Reg. No. 0005031, 1886 Brock Road N.E.,
Bloomingburg, Ohio 43106
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
FROELICH, J.
{¶ 1} Michael Moore appeals from a judgment of the Clark County Court of
Common Pleas, which overruled his motion for “further proceedings.”
{¶ 2} In 2007, Moore was found guilty by a jury of two counts of murder, with
-2-
firearm specifications, and one count of having a weapon while under disability. We
affirmed his conviction on appeal. State v. Moore, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2007 CA 40, 2008-
Ohio-2577. On March 25, 2014, Moore filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel in the investigation and handling of his case. The trial
court denied the petition on April 18, 2014, and we affirmed this judgment in February
2015. State v. Moore, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2014-CA-66,
2015-Ohio-550
.
{¶ 3} On April 21, 2015, Moore filed a “Motion for Further Proceedings”;
specifically, he sought “further proceedings in his motion for new trial filed March 25,
2014.” The “motion for further proceedings” acknowledged that Moore’s petition for
postconviction relief had been overruled, but asserted that his motion for a new trial was
“a separate motion” on which no action had been taken. The record does not include a
response from the State to Moore’s “motion for further proceedings.” Nonetheless, the
trial court filed a one-sentence entry overruling the motion for “the reasoning as set forth
in the State’s response.” Moore now appeals from the denial of his motion for further
proceedings.
{¶ 4} The docket of the case and the record before us do not include a motion for
new trial. However, at oral argument, Moore’s attorney produced a file-stamped copy of
a Motion for New Trial, dated March 25, 2014, and which contained the correct case
number. The State’s attorney indicated that he had never seen the motion, and the trial
court’s terse judgment in response to the motion for further proceedings does not make
clear that it had seen the motion for new trial. Under these unusual circumstances, and
with the agreement of the parties, we will remand this matter to the trial court for it to
consider whether to add the March 25, 2014 motion for new trial to the record, and then,
-3-
if appropriate, to consider and rule on the motion.
{¶ 5} The judgment of the trial court will be reversed, and this matter will be
remanded for further proceedings.
.............
HALL, J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Ryan A. Saunders
George A. Katchmer
Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter
