JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER PROVES TO BE HOLMAN'S "PAVLOV DOG" IN YET ANOTHER CASE!

LAPDOG MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, has demonstrated in yet another case that he is nothing more than a stooge for CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN and that he is no more than HOLMAN'S VERY OWN "PAVLOV DOG!"


It is ore than interesting to review the facts in the case of State v, Shawn Wheeland, Medina County Case No. 05CR0095, which can be accessed at the website of the Medina County Clerk of Court at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/DetailForm.aspx?case=05CR0095 .

State v Wheeland was prosecuted by SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, before none other than LAPDOG COLLIER.


The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed and overturned the conviction of Mr. Wheeland because, as the Ninth District concluded, LAPDOG COLLIER ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO CONSIDER COMPETENT, CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AS HE RAILROADED ANOTHER INNOCENT CITIZEN INTO PRISON, ALL FOR THE SAKE OF PRESERVING HIS FIRM GRIP ON HIS UNCONTESTED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY BENCH BY BOWING TO THE DICTATES OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.


The opinion of the Ninth District Court of Appeals in State v Wheeland, Court of Appeals Case. No. 06CA0034-M can be found at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2007/2007-ohio-1213.pdf  .

BELOW IS A SUMMATION, TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE NINTH DISTRICT OPINION:

{¶2} Appellant was indicted on February 16, 2005, on one count offelonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a felony of the second degree, and one count of child endangering in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1)(E)(1)(d), a felony of the second degree. The charges arose out of an incident in which a five-month old baby was shaken and suffered injuries. Appellant was watching the baby overnight after the mother dropped the baby off
before going to work. Appellant maintained that the baby began to looked dazed and vomit after falling off a couch. Appellant pled not guilty to the charges. Appellant was held in jail pending resolution of the matter on a $100,000.00 bond.

Undoubtedly, LAPDOG COLLIER held Mr. Wheeland in lieu of the $100,000 bond set by CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.  [See prior post, captioned

CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN SETS BAIL FOR EVERY CITIZEN WHO APPEARS BEFORE LAPDOG MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE COLLIER, CONTRARY TO LAW! found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/12/corrupt-medina-county-prosecutor-dino.html ]

{¶3} On January 17, 2006, appellant appeared before the court for a change of plea hearing. The State moved to dismiss the charge of felonious assault in exchange for appellant’s pleading guilty to the charge of child endangering. The State further asserted that it would agree to a one-year term of incarceration. 

In the usual and customary practice in the art of the Medina County double-cross, LAPDOG COLLIER sentenced Mr. Wheeland to TWO YEARS IN PRISON MANDATED BY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN rather than the one year prison term disingenuously offered by HOLMAN to coerce a guilty plea from Mr. Wheeland.  [ See prior post, captioned THE ART OF THE FIX AND THE DOUBLE-CROSS IN MEDINA COURT, found at
http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/10/art-of-fix-and-couble-cross-in-medina.html ]


HERE'S THE SENTENCING ENTRY FROM THE CLERK'S WEBSITE:

4/26/2006

SENTENCING ENTRY FILED

1439/710-711, DEFT CONVICTED OF 2919.22(B)(1(E)(1)(d) ENDANGERING CHILDREN, F-2 SUBJECT TO A PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF PRISON. CRT ORDERS DEFT TO SERVE 2 YRS IN PRISON, W/CREDIT FOR 425 DAYS SERVED. ALL COSTS WAIVED. DEFT SHALL SUBMIT DNA SAMPLE.

 TURNING ONCE AGAIN TO THE APPELLATE DECISION:

{¶4} On February 21, 2006, appellant moved for a continuance of sentencing, which the court granted. On February 27, 2006, the trial court heard comments from the injured infant’s mother for consideration in regard to appellant’s sentencing. The child’s mother informed the court that the child was “doing really well.” The trial judge informed the mother that he had a “problem” with the fact that appellant told the probation department that he had not shaken the child.

In his usual and customary  fashion, LAPDOG COLLIER DENIED MR. WHEELAND THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE solely with the intended purpose of preserving his grip on his uncontested lifetime appointment to the Medina County Bench compliments of CORRUPT MEDINA DEM PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND MEDINA COUNTY DEM PARTY.

{¶5} On March 3, 2006, prior to sentencing, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his plea. He argued that he had never acknowledged shaking the child
and that a witness had just come forward with newly discovered evidence tending to show that appellant “was perhaps not guilty or had a complete defense to the charge.” On March 3, 2006, the trial court held a hearing on appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took the matter under consideration, but apparently orally informed the parties that it denied the motion.... Later the same day, the trial court issued an order denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea without analysis.

LAPDOG COLLIER issued his "order" without analysis since he conducted none, but simply did as he was instructed by CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND HIS CRIMINAL ASSISTANTS (A MORE THAN APT CHARACTERIZATION).   [ See prior post, captioned LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER PROVES HIMSELF TO BE A COMPLETE WHORE, ON THE TRIAL RECORD!, found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/06/lapdog-judge-collier-proves-himself-to.html ]

{¶6} Also on April 24, 2006, the matter proceeded to sentencing. Prior to sentencing, appellant inquired regarding the trial court’s rulings on his motion for reconsideration and motion for conclusions of law and findings of fact. The trial court orally denied both motions, asserting that it found both defense witnesses at the hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea to be “singularly incredible – not credible.” The trial court then sentenced appellant to two years in prison.

Once again, LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, completely ignored the truthful testimony of credible witnesses solely for the sake of preserving his lifetime uncontested political appointment to the Medina County Bench by simply doing the bidding of CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, CONTRARY TO THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

{¶14} There is further no evidence to show that the State would be prejudiced by an order allowing appellant to withdraw his guilty plea. This Court has held, “‘Before sentencing, the inconvenience to court and prosecution resulting from a change of plea is ordinarily slight as compared with the public interest in protecting the right of the accused to trial by jury.’” Eklich, supra, quoting Kadwell v. United States (C.A.9, 1963), 315 F.2d 667, 670.

The reference by the Ninth District Court of Appeals to "protecting the RIGHT of the accused to trial by jury" is of little concern to LAPDOG COLLIER, WHO DAILY DEPRIVES ACCUSED PERSONS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THE PROTECTIONS OF THE OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE, all for the purpose of preserving his lifetime political appointment to the Medina County Bench.  [ See prior post, captioned CORRUPTION REIGNS IN THE MEDINA COUNTY CRIMINAL INJUSTICE SYSTEM, found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/10/corruption-reigns-in-medina-county.html ]

{¶16}The trial court did not, however, inform appellant that he was waiving his right to remain silent and not testify.

NOT MUCH OF A SURPRISE THERE, SINCE LAPDOG COLLIER HAS DEMONSTRATED BY HIS RULINGS THAT HE CONSIDERS MIRANDA WARNINGS TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN AN ANNOYANCE AND HE COMPLETELY DISREGARDS THE RULINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN THIS REGARD. 

{¶18} Appellant presented the testimony of two witnesses at the March 3, 2006 hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Roosevelt Shelton is appellant’s neighbor. He testified that a co-worker, Eskia Taylor, told him approximately two-and-a-half weeks earlier that the victim child’s mother told her that she thought she had shaken her baby too hard. Mr. Roosevelt testified that the subject of appellant’s case came up during their conversation about people that they both knew from the Wadsworth area. He further testified that he told Ms. Taylor that she should tell appellant’s father what she had told him but Ms. Taylor declined, because she did not want to get involved. Mr. Roosevelt testified that he went to appellant’s father that evening after work and told him what Ms. Taylor had said during their conversation. Mr. Roosevelt asserted that he does not know Nina King, the victim child’s mother. 

{¶19} Eskia Taylor testified that she and Mr. Roosevelt were having a conversation at work about appellant’s case. Mr. Roosevelt told her that he was a neighbor of appellant’s parents. Ms. Taylor testified that she knew Nina King and
that they “hung out” together when they were younger. She testified that she ran into Ms. King at Medina County Job and Family Services one day in January 2005 and that they engaged in small talk, catching up on one another’s lives. Ms. Taylor testified that she knew that child protective services had taken the victim child from Ms. King after the incident and she asked Ms. King how she was coping with the situation. Ms. Taylor testified that Ms. King told her that it was a stressful situation and then said, “I think I shook him too hard.” Ms. Taylor testified that she did not tell anyone about Ms. King’s statement because she did not want to be involved. She testified that she was angry at Mr. Roosevelt and the prosecutor for encouraging her to testify and become involved in the matter but that she now realizes how important her testimony is. Finally, Ms. Taylor testified that she knows appellant’s sister and that she recognized appellant from school but that she does not know him well.

RELYING ON LAPDOG COLLIER'S UNFAILING OBEDIENCE TO THE MANDATES OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, ASS. PROSECUTOR SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, DID WHAT HE DOES BEST ... NOTHING:

{¶21} The trial court denied appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea without analysis, other than the judge’s statement at the sentencing hearing that he found Mr. Roosevelt and Ms. Taylor to be “singularly incredible – not credible[.]”
The State, however, failed to present any evidence to rebut appellant’s evidence that someone other than appellant reasonably could have caused the child’s injuries, so that appellant “was perhaps not guilty or had a complete defense to the charge.” See Fulk at ¶13. The trial court further expressed a “problem” with the fact that appellant denied shaking or otherwise harming the child.

 {¶25} Under the circumstances, it is clear that the witnesses’ testimony coupled with appellant’s continued denials of harming the baby are “significant enough to constitute a reasonable and legitimate basis for [a]ppellant’s desire to withdraw [his plea].” State v. Jackson (Apr. 13, 2000), 3d Dist. No. 9-99-50. Given the substance of the witnesses’ unrebutted testimony and its potential to exculpate appellant, we find the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw appellant’s plea to be an abuse of discretion. Appellant’s second assignment of error is sustained.

SINCE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, HAD ABUSED HIS "DISCRETION" AND REVERSED THIS UNLAWFUL CONVICTION, IT DID NOT ADDRESS MR. WHEELAND'S OTHER APPELLATE ISSUES, WHICH WERE ALSO WELL-FOUNDED AND OF OBVIOUS MERIT:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

“THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT’S PLEA WITHOUT INFORMING HIM OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS[.]”

 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

“IT WAS PREJUDICIAL ERROR AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO DENY THE APPELLANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA BEFORE SENTENCING AFTER THE APPELLANT DEMONSTRATED THAT HIS PLEA WAS BASED UPON MISLEADING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS POTENTIAL SENTENCE.”

 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV

“THE STATE AND THE TRIAL COURT’S BREACH OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT REQUIRE REVERSAL.” 

 THE ABOVE CASE OF STATE v WHEELAND DEMONSTRATES JUST ONE MORE DAY OF BUSINESS AS USUAL IN CORRUPT COURTROOM NO. 1, OPERATED BY LAPDOG MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER AND HIS CRIMINAL ASSOCIATES AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION.

LAPDOG COLLIER'S COMPLETE LACK OF INTEGRITY, AS DEMONSTRATED IN A WHOLE HOST OF CASES, INCLUDING THE WHEELAND CASE, IS PROOF POSITIVE OF THE IMPERATIVE FOR AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS BY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FOLLOWED BY INDICTMENTS OF THESE CRIMINAL OFFENDERS WHO OPERATE IN COURTROOM NO. 1.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....