Tilton v. State

[Cite as Tilton v. State, 2026-Ohio-1509.]


                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                     ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                             LAKE COUNTY

DENNIS G. TILTON,                                    CASE NO. 2025-L-112

                  Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                     Civil Appeal from the
         - vs -                                      Court of Common Pleas

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                     Trial Court No. 2025 CV 001105
                  Defendant-Appellee.


                            OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

                                         Decided: April 27, 2026
                                          Judgment: Affirmed


Dennis G. Tilton, pro se, 35673 West Island Drive, Eastlake, OH 44095 (Plaintiff-
Appellant).

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Eric J. Foisel, Assistant Prosecutor,
Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH
44077 (For Defendant-Appellee).


EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.

        {¶1}      Appellant, Dennis G. Tilton, appeals the judgment of the Lake County Court

of Common Pleas dismissing his “Complaint and Intent to File Petition for Post-Conviction

Relief,” pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(3) and (B)(6). Tilton’s filing was premised upon R.C.

2953.21, Ohio’s postconviction relief statute. The trial court determined it lacked

jurisdiction to adjudicate Tilton’s assertions. We affirm the trial court’s determination.

        {¶2}      Tilton was originally charged in the Willoughby Municipal Court with

operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (“OVI”), a misdemeanor of the
first degree, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a); one count of operating a vehicle while

under the influence of alcohol and refusing to provide a breath/blood sample, a

misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2); and lanes of travel

upon roadways, a minor misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 4511.25(A). Tilton was later

charged with one count of resisting arrest, a misdemeanor of the second degree, in

violation of R.C. 2921.33(A). Tilton pleaded “not guilty,” and the case proceeded to a jury

trial. Tilton was found guilty on all charges.

       {¶3}   At sentencing, the court ordered the two OVI counts to merge for purposes

of sentencing. On the surviving OVI charge, the trial court ordered Tilton to serve 180

days in the Lake County Jail, 150 of which were suspended. On the resisting arrest

charge, the court ordered Tilton to serve 90 days in the Lake County Jail, 65 of which

were suspended. The court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Tilton was also

placed on a period of community control for 18 months. Moreover, the court ordered

restitution to the victim, who testified her insurance covered the damage to her vehicle.

The prosecutor represented the victim’s deductible was $500 and, as a result, the court

awarded restitution in the amount of the victim’s deductible. Neither defense counsel nor

Tilton contested the restitution order.

       {¶4}   Tilton appealed to this court. During the pendency of that appeal, Tilton filed

voluminous motions. Of note, in a July 2025 omnibus judgment entry, this court overruled,

inter alia, Tilton’s request to supplement the appellate record with matters outside of the

record (including alleged Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) materials) and Tilton’s

request to supplement the record with “complete and unredacted trial exhibits.”




                                          PAGE 2 OF 8

Case No. 2025-L-112
       {¶5}     In his appellate brief in that case, Tilton assigned multiple errors relating to

the trial court’s alleged violation of his right to due process, alleged prosecutorial

misconduct, alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, alleged improper evidentiary

admissions committed by the trial court, alleged due process violations by the prosecutor

relating to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), the trial court’s alleged error in

ordering restitution, and the trial court’s alleged denial of the ADA. On December 8, 2025,

this court unanimously affirmed Tilton’s convictions. State v. Tilton, 2025-Ohio-5471,

(11th Dist.).

       {¶6}     In Tilton, this court determined, as a matter of fact, that Tilton refused

medical treatment at the scene. Id. at ¶ 8-13. And, as a matter of law, (1) he was not

denied due process based upon any alleged redactions of exhibits or video evidence, id.

at ¶ 24-28; (2) there was no error in admitting the photos of the accident scene, id. at ¶

44-46 and 53-54; (3) the trial court properly managed any claimed medical issues Tilton

may have been experiencing at trial, id. at ¶ 73-74; (4) neither police nor first responders

ignored nor disregarded any arguable medical issues Tilton was purportedly experiencing

at the scene, id. ¶ 64; (5) the trial court did not err in awarding restitution to the victim, id.

at ¶ 69-70; (6) there was no error when the trial court accepted the parties’ joint stipulation

regarding Tilton’s prior conviction for OVI, id. at ¶ 37-39; and (7) that the record was

properly and sufficiently transmitted, particularly after this court intervened to supplement

the same with the transcripts of proceedings, id. at ¶ 22 and 24-28.

       {¶7}     Tilton subsequently filed a timely application for reconsideration which this

court overruled on January 29, 2026.




                                          PAGE 3 OF 8

Case No. 2025-L-112
       {¶8}   Meanwhile, on June 19, 2025, in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas,

Tilton filed a “Complaint and Intent to file Petition for Post-Conviction Relief under R.C.

2953.21.” In the filing, Tilton sought reversal of the convictions stemming from Tilton

based upon various alleged errors. The State filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state

a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss,

underscoring that Ohio’s postconviction statute, R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a), requires the

petition to be filed “in that court that imposed sentence. . . .” The court concluded that

“[s]ince this Court did not sentence Tilton, this Court is not the appropriate venue for a

postconviction relief petition from him.” The trial court accordingly dismissed the petition.

Tilton appeals and assigns 16 errors for this court’s consideration. We shall list each error

at the outset. They provide:

              [1.] Error – NHTSA – Proscribed questioning and coerced speech[.]

              [2.] Error – Denial of hospital transport and omission of medical
              records[.]

              [3.] Error – Police failure to preserve evidence[.]

              [4.] Error – Failure of the police and defense counsel to investigate
              and address causation factors[.]

              [5.] Error – Failure to recognize and accommodate medical crisis
              testimony.

              [6.] Error - Counsel abandonment and negligence[.]

              [7.] Error – Fabricated or unsubstantiated damages[.]

              [8.] Error – Unsworn advocate statement and sentencing
              irregularities[.]

              [9.] Error – Improper sentence enhancement and prior-history
              stipulation[.]

              [10.] Error – Excessive bond and constructive denial of access[.]

              [11.] Error – Jurisdictional misstatement by the State[.]


                                          PAGE 4 OF 8

Case No. 2025-L-112
              [12.] Error – misuse of res judicata[.]

              [13.] Error – Misapplication of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) to a statutory post-
              conviction filing[.]

              [14.] Error – Disregard of Brady obligations[.]

              [15.] Error – Ignored record-transmission motions[.]

              [16.] Error – Cumulative procedural defects[.]


       {¶9}    R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a) states that a person who meets various criteria, may

file a petition for postconviction relief “in the court that imposed sentence.” The court that

imposed sentence in this matter was the Willoughby Municipal Court. Tilton’s filing was

therefore not processed in the appropriate court. On this basis alone, we need not

address the merits of Tilton’s assigned errors.

       {¶10} Further, in State v. Cowan, 2004-Ohio-1583, the Supreme Court of Ohio

explained that “[m]unicipal courts are creatures of statute and have limited jurisdiction[,]”

and that neither R.C. 1901.18 nor R.C. 1901.20, which confer civil and criminal

jurisdiction to the municipal courts, provides for jurisdiction over postconviction-relief

petitions in the municipal courts, emphasizing that “[h]ad the General Assembly

envisioned such jurisdiction, it could have explicitly conferred it in R.C. Chapter 1901.”

Cowan at ¶ 11. As a result, the Court concluded “[a] municipal court is without jurisdiction

to review a petition for post[c]onviction relief filed pursuant to R.C. 2953.21.” Cowan at

syllabus.

       {¶11} The trial court, in dismissing Tilton’s petition, correctly emphasized these

points. The trial court additionally explained that a municipal-court misdemeanant is not

without a postconviction remedy. The trial court, citing this court’s decision in State v.

Denihan, 2016-Ohio-7443 (11th Dist.), recognized that misdemeanants are not without


                                          PAGE 5 OF 8

Case No. 2025-L-112
recourse in postconviction matters. Rather, individuals convicted of misdemeanors that

have potential claims based upon evidence dehors the record have recourse outside the

parameters of R.C. 2953.21. Specifically, this court, in Denihan, stated:

              Crim.R. 57(B) provides that “[i]f no procedure is specifically
              prescribed by rule, the court may proceed in any lawful
              manner not inconsistent with these rules of criminal
              procedure, and shall look to the rules of civil procedure and to
              the applicable law if no rule of criminal procedure exists.

              “The criminal rules thus contemplate resort to the civil rules
              for procedures not anticipated by the criminal rules.
              And Civ.R. 60(B)(5) permits relief from a judgment for ‘any . .
              . reason justifying [such] relief.’ It follows that [Crim.R. 57(B),
              through application of Civ.R. 60(B),] may afford a criminal
              defendant relief from a judgment of conviction.” Miller [v.
              Walton, 2005-Ohio-4855, ¶ 17 (1st Dist.)], citing State v.
              Harrison, . . . 2005-Ohio-4212, ¶ 10-12 [11th Dist.] (citation
              omitted). . . . Pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B), municipal courts may
              entertain motions to vacate their own judgments in criminal
              cases. An individual convicted in municipal court and seeking
              relief on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel with
              evidence outside the record may therefore pursue relief from
              the misdemeanor conviction through a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to
              vacate.

Denihan at ¶ 18-19.

       {¶12} The trial court determined, in light of the statutory language set forth in R.C.

2953.21(A)(1)(a) and the Supreme Court of Ohio’s holding in Cowan, that it lacked

jurisdiction to entertain Tilton’s petition. The trial court was correct.

       {¶13} Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider Tilton’s arguments, it

rightly concluded it could not address his arguments. An “appellate court acts entirely as

a court of errors . . . .” Longworth v. Sturges, 4 Ohio St. 690, 697 (1855). The trial court,

in concluding the petition must be dismissed, determined the dismissal was appropriate

under Civ.R. 12(B)(3) (improper venue) and Civ.R. 12(B)(6) (failure to state a claim upon



                                          PAGE 6 OF 8

Case No. 2025-L-112
which relief might be granted). We agree with the trial court’s conclusion, but for a different

reason.

       {¶14} Pursuant to Cowan, we conclude the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the

subject matter pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1). As suggested above, a “petition

for postconviction relief is a collateral civil attack on a criminal conviction.” State v. Peters,

2019-Ohio-4617, ¶ 11 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Steffen, 1994-Ohio-111, ¶ 60. Thus, the

Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure apply. In light of the statutory and case authority, the trial

court could not consider Tilton’s petition for postconviction relief. As a matter of law, we

find no error in the trial court’s determination.

       {¶15} Therefore, appellant’s assignments of error are without merit. The trial

court’s decision is affirmed.



MATT LYNCH, P.J.,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

concur.




                                          PAGE 7 OF 8

Case No. 2025-L-112
                                   JUDGMENT ENTRY


       For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignments of error are

without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the Lake County Court

of Common Pleas is affirmed.

       Any pending motions are hereby overruled as moot.

       Costs to be taxed against appellant.




                                                      JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI



                                                  PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH,
                                                             concurs



                                                       JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND,
                                                              concurs


               THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

  A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
                        Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.




                                           PAGE 8 OF 8

Case No. 2025-L-112