2019 Ohio 5000
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On Aug. 23, 2018, inmate Antonio M. Jones filed an affidavit under R.C. 2935.09 accusing his former defense attorney, Larry Thomas, of crimes (conspiring to deprive rights and obstructing official business) based on counsel’s trial strategy and alleged omissions.
- Jones relied on a police interview (he said the shooting was accidental/mistaken target) and sentencing remarks by the prosecutor (noting the jury found transferred intent).
- The trial court (June 10, 2019) concluded the affidavit lacked a meritorious claim/probable cause and was not filed in good faith, refused to issue a warrant, and—pursuant to R.C. 2935.10—referred the matter to the prosecuting attorney.
- Jones appealed, arguing denial of due process/equal protection and that the court applied the wrong standard in assessing probable cause.
- The Tenth District reviewed for abuse of discretion, held Jones’s allegations amounted to a collateral attack on an affirmed conviction and failed to establish criminality by counsel (transferred intent doctrine undermined the “accident” argument), and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probable cause existed to issue an arrest warrant for alleged violations of R.C. 2921.45 (deprive rights/conspiracy) and R.C. 2921.31 (obstruction). | Jones: Evidence shows the shooting was accidental (no murder intent); Thomas’s conduct (choosing a losing defense, failing to object) amounted to criminal conspiracy/obstruction. | Trial court/Thomas: Affidavit lacks a meritorious claim/probable cause; claims attempt a collateral attack on an affirmed conviction; transferred intent doctrine applies. | No probable cause; warrant denied; matter referred to prosecutor; judgment affirmed. |
| Whether the trial court applied the wrong standard and violated due process/equal protection. | Jones: Court ignored overwhelming evidence and used wrong standard, violating constitutional rights. | Appellee/court: Jones failed to develop or cite law to support constitutional or standard-of-review claims; court should not craft arguments for appellant. | Court declined to entertain underdeveloped constitutional claims; no reversible error; assignments overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion requires more than error in judgment)
- State ex rel. Strothers v. Turner, 79 Ohio St.3d 272 (mere filing of an affidavit does not require issuance of an arrest warrant)
- State v. Mbodji, 129 Ohio St.3d 325 (private citizen complaint procedure under R.C. 2935.09)
- State ex rel. Dominguez v. State, 129 Ohio St.3d 203 (R.C. 2935.09 must be read in pari materia with R.C. 2935.10)
- Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist., 27 Ohio St.2d 102 (statutory "may" construed as permissive)
- State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 (issues not raised below generally cannot be raised for the first time on appeal)