State v. Jaeger
2022 Ohio 2183
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- In Sept–Oct 2016 a series of gas-station break-ins occurred; perpetrators used rocks to smash doors, carried out cigarettes in garbage cans.
- On Oct 12, 2016 Jaeger and an accomplice attempted a similar break-in but failed; they were stopped for a headlight violation and arrested on outstanding warrants.
- Police recovered clothing matching surveillance, two garbage cans, and a large rock; Jaeger offered information to police in exchange for immunity.
- A grand jury indicted Jaeger on multiple counts (vandalism, breaking and entering, theft, and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity); a jury convicted him and the trial court sentenced him to five years.
- Jaeger appealed and this Court affirmed his convictions and sentence. He later filed a postconviction petition raising 42 claims (arrest, bail, pretrial, trial, counsel effectiveness, appellate errors).
- The trial court dismissed the petition without a hearing as barred by res judicata and as supported only by a self-serving affidavit; the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Jaeger's Argument | State's/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata barred Jaeger's postconviction claims | Many claims could not be raised on direct appeal or required outside-record evidence; res judicata should not apply | Most claims were or could have been raised on direct appeal and Jaeger offered no cogent outside-record evidence to avoid Perry bar | Dismissal affirmed; res judicata applied |
| Whether Jaeger supplied outside-record evidence sufficient to overcome res judicata | His affidavit and filings constituted evidence outside the record that showed claims could not be fairly determined on direct appeal | The affidavit was self-serving, lacked cogency and did not present threshold evidence outside the record | Outside evidence insufficient; res judicata stands |
| Whether denial of a complete transcript prejudiced Jaeger's ability to appeal or pursue postconviction relief | Lack of a complete transcript prevented an adequate direct appeal and postconviction review | Transcript issues and appellate-record complaints are matters for direct appeal, not postconviction relief; Jaeger failed to show cognizable postconviction grounds | Court declined relief; claims barred or not cognizable in postconviction proceedings |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a complete transcript | Appellate counsel failed to obtain critical transcript items and thus rendered ineffective assistance | Ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims are not cognizable in R.C. 2953.21 postconviction proceedings | Claims not reachably cognizable here (per Murnahan); assignments overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (postconviction relief is a collateral civil attack; no automatic right to a hearing)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (final conviction bars claims that were or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal)
- State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (trial court serves a gatekeeping role to determine whether a petitioner merits a postconviction hearing)
- State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 (1992) (claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are not cognizable in postconviction proceedings under R.C. 2953.21)
- State v. Lawson, 103 Ohio App.3d 307 (12th Dist. 1995) (outside-record evidence must meet a threshold standard of cogency to avoid res judicata)