State v. DeVaughns
2012 Ohio 5791
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Devaughns was convicted by jury on May 4, 2006 of felonious assault (8-year sentence) and kidnapping (10-year sentence), to be served consecutively.
- On direct appeal, this Court affirmed but remanded for resentencing due to a denied allocution right; on remand the same sentences were imposed and affirmed.
- In August 2009, Devaughns moved for a new trial under Crim.R. 33 based on allegedly newly discovered daycare records; the trial court overruled.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and Devaughns filed a pro se brief; this Court previously affirmed the trial court’s judgment after addressing the issues and reviewing the record.
- In the current pro se appeal, Devaughns asserts ineffective assistance of trial counsel and related arguments; the court ultimately affirms the trial court’s judgment, finding most claims barred by res judicata and addressing only the sixth assignment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal issues are properly before the court. | Devaughns seeks review of the earlier decision as to newly discovered evidence. | Res judicata bars these post-judgment challenges not raised on direct appeal. | Overruled; issues barred or unnecessary to reconsider. |
| Whether most of Devaughns’ assignments are barred by res judicata. | Assignments 2–4, 7–10 concern trial testimony and other trial issues. | Final judgments bar those defenses raised or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal. | Granted; these assignments are barred by res judicata. |
| Whether the sixth assignment (ineffective assistance) warrants a Crim.R. 33(B) new trial. | Defense counsel misrepresented alibi evidence; new trial sought on grounds of ineffective assistance. | Motion was untimely and the evidence was not newly discovered or excludable. | Unfounded; motion untimely and no prejudice shown; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the trial court properly treated the motion as Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial. | Motion should be analyzed under Crim.R. 33 standards for new trials. | Correctly labeled and analyzed as a Crim.R. 33 motion. | Correct treatment; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (final judgments bar claims that could have been raised at trial or on appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (defendant must show deficient performance and prejudice for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Beavercreek v. LeValley, 2007-Ohio-2105 (Ohio 2d Dist. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard and prejudice analysis in Crim.R. 33)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Redevelopment, 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (abuse of discretion defined; sound reasoning required)
- State v. Devaughns, 2011-Ohio-125 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2011) (analysis of newly discovered evidence and alibi issues; prior disposition cited)
- Kilroy v. B.H. Lakeshore Co., 11 Ohio App.3d 357 (1996) (pro se litigants held to standard of law and procedure)
- Yocum v. Means, 2002-Ohio-3803 (2d Dist. Darke 2002) (pro se litigants bound by procedural rules)