Montrez L. McMath, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Montrez L. McMath was convicted of two counts of Level 3 felony robbery and two counts of Level 5 felony robbery in November 2022. Following his convictions, McMath appealed the trial court's denial of his Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) motion to dismiss; we affirmed.

[2] Then, in January 2025, McMath filed a motion requesting the trial court to enforce its alleged dismissal of his case based on a Chronological Case Summary (CCS) entry dated March 14, 2022. The court denied his motion, and McMath now appeals. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On August 22, 2017, the State charged McMath with three counts of Level 3 felony robbery and two counts of Level 5 felony robbery. On January 28, 2022, McMath moved to dismiss the charges under Criminal Rule 4(C). A hearing was held on his motion to dismiss on March 28, 2022. During that hearing, the State noted “a scrivener's error ․ on March 14, 2022[,] there is a notation in the CCS where it says order made for motion to dismiss[.]” App. Vol. II p. 196. The court denied McMath's motion to dismiss.

[4] Following a November 2022 jury trial, McMath was convicted of two of the three Level 3 felony counts and both Level 5 felony counts. On direct appeal, McMath challenged the trial court's denial of his January 28, 2022, Criminal Rule 4(C) motion to dismiss. We affirmed. McMath v. State, No. 23A-CR-8, 2023 WL 5771556 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2023) (mem.).

[5] In January 2025, McMath filed a motion requesting that the trial court enforce its alleged dismissal of his case based on the CCS entry below:

Tabular or graphical material not displayable at this time. Id. at 34. In the motion, McMath alleged: “1. Under the above cause number, the Motion to Dismiss was filed on [January 28, 2022]. This Motion was never denied by Judge Grant W. Hawkins. 2. On [March 14, 2022,] the Motion to Dismiss was granted by Judicial Officer Grant W. Hawkins under Criminal Rule 4(D).” Id. at 155. McMath now appeals the trial court's denial of his January 2025 motion.

Discussion and Decision

[6] McMath contends that he “moved for Dismissal under violation of Criminal Rule 4(C) on [January 28, 2022]. Judge Grant Hawkins Granted [his] Motion to Dismiss on [March 14, 2022] under Criminal Rule 4(D). Judge Grant Hawkins never denied [his] Motion.” Appellant's Br. p. 5. He, therefore, concludes his case is dismissed and the trial court erred in denying his motion to enforce said dismissal. We disagree.

[7] McMath's argument is an attempt to relitigate the denial of his January 28, 2022, motion to dismiss, and he is barred from doing so by res judicata.¹ The principle behind the doctrine of res judicata “is the prevention of repetitive litigation of the same dispute.” Dunigan v. State, 191 N.E.3d 851, 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (emphasis omitted), reh'g denied, trans. denied. On direct appeal, McMath acknowledged that his motion to dismiss was denied when he sought our review of the trial court's denial of that motion. At that time, he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate any additional claims that said motion was granted. The court did not err in denying his motion.

[8] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that McMath conflates Criminal Rules 4(C) and 4(D). The fact that McMath seemingly believes a Criminal Rule 4(C) motion to dismiss may be granted under Criminal Rule 4(D) is of no moment. The crux of his argument is a request to relitigate the court's disposition of his 4(C) motion to dismiss.

Scheele, Judge.

Judges Foley and Kenworthy concur. Foley, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.