[Cite as State v. Hampton,
2023-Ohio-3737.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
:
-vs- :
: Case No. CT2023-0045
RODRIQUEZ HAMPTON :
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Muskingum
County Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
CR2022-0293
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 13, 2023
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
RONALD WELCH RODRIQUEZ HAMPTON PRO SE
Prosecuting Attorney No. A805-185
BY JOHN CONNOR DEVER Noble Correctional Institution
Assistant Prosecutor 15708 McConnelsville Road
27 North Fifth St., Box 189 Caldwell, OH 43724-8902
Zanesville, OH 43702
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0045 2
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant Rodriquez Hampton appeals the June 8, 2023 judgment entry of
the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas granting appellee’s motion to lift stay.
Appellee is the State of Ohio.
Facts & Procedural History
{¶2} On October 14, 2022, appellant pled guilty to one count of trafficking in
drugs (cocaine), as amended, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), with a forfeiture
specification, and one count of trafficking in drugs (fentanyl-related compound) in the
vicinity of a school, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), with major drug offender, firearm,
and forfeiture specifications. The trial court imposed the jointly recommended aggregate
minimum sentence of twenty (20) years with a maximum indefinite sentence of twenty-
five- and one-half years. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutive
to the term appellant was serving in Muskingum County Common Pleas Case Number
CR2022-0057. Further, the trial court ordered the forfeiture of all of appellant’s property
detailed in the indictment. The trial court memorialized appellant’s convictions and
sentence in a judgment entry dated October 31, 2022.
{¶3} On November 10, 2022, appellant filed a direct appeal of his convictions
and sentence. In his direct appeal, he argued: the indeterminate sentences imposed
pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Act were unconstitutional; his consecutive sentences were
contrary to law; and the trial court’s order of forfeiture constituted an excessive fine in
violation of the Excessive Fines Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions.
{¶4} On December 6, 2022, appellant filed a “motion to stay judgment,” asking
the trial court to “stay execution of the judgment of forfeiture until resolution of his timely
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0045 3
direct appeal” because “whether [the] forfeiture violated the Eighth Amendment is an
issue defendant plans to present on appeal.” The trial court granted the motion to stay
on January 5, 2023.
{¶5} This Court overruled appellant’s three assignments of error in his direct
appeal, and affirmed his conviction and sentence. We issued a judgment entry and
opinion on June 5, 2023. State v. Hampton, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2022-0081,
2023-Ohio-1868.
{¶6} On June 7, 2023, appellee filed a motion to lift the stay of judgment based
upon our affirmance of appellant’s conviction and sentence, including the forfeiture of the
real and personal property. The trial court granted the motion to lift the stay of judgment
on June 8, 2023. Appellant filed a “reply to motion to lift stay” on June 16, 2023, in which
he argued that since the appeals process was still pending, the entry lifting the stay was
improper.
{¶7} Appellant appeals the June 8, 2023 judgment entry of the Muskingum
County Court of Common Pleas, and assigns the following as error:
{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN, REVERSIBLE ERROR BY
COLLIDNG WITH DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION WHEN IT ENTERED
FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE STATE’S MOTION TO LIFT STAY WITHOUT
OPPORTUNITY TO REPLY PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE.”
I.
{¶9} Appellant contends the trial court committed reversible error in granting the
motion to lift stay without allowing him a chance to respond to the motion. Appellant cites
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0045 4
Criminal Rule 47 in support of his motion. However, when appellee filed the motion to lift
the stay, this Court had already affirmed the trial court’s judgment that was stayed. The
issues appellant presented in his motion to stay with regards to the forfeiture had been
thoroughly litigated in his direct appeal.
{¶10} Additionally, we find any failure by the trial court to allow appellant time to
file a response to be harmless. “Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not
affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Criminal Rule 52(A). In the reply that
appellant filed on June 16, 2023, he argued the lifting of the stay was premature because
his motion for reconsideration was pending, and the Ohio Supreme Court “had not yet
ruled.” This Court denied appellant’s motion for reconsideration of his direct appeal on
July 24, 2023. Further, appellant did not file a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme
Court regarding this Court’s June 5, 2023 opinion or July 24, 2023 judgment entry.
Accordingly, the issue of forfeiture has been fully litigated and finally decided.
{¶11} Based on the foregoing, appellant’s assignment of error is overruled.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0045 5
{¶12} The June 8, 2023 judgment entry of the Muskingum County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Hoffman, J., and
Wise, J., concur
