State v. Myers
2017 Ohio 1220
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Craig R. Myers was convicted by a jury of retaliation (R.C. 2921.05(A)) for threatening his public defender in Wood County case No. 13-CR-141.
- He was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to an earlier eight-year sentence in No. 11-CR-364; he appealed and the conviction and weight/sufficiency challenges were overruled on direct appeal.
- While that direct appeal was pending, Myers filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 alleging multiple constitutional, evidentiary, and counsel-related errors and asserting the judgment was void or voidable.
- The trial court dismissed the petition as barred by res judicata; the dismissal was journalized April 27, 2016.
- Myers appealed the postconviction denial pro se; the State did not file a brief in the appeal.
- The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Myers’s claims were (or could have been) raised at trial or on direct appeal and therefore barred by res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Myers) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred applying res judicata to claims about improper pretrial/jail conditions and malicious prosecution (claims 14,16-20) | Myers: Evidence of unlawful bond revocation, unlawful detention, and a pattern of corrupt activity would have changed the verdict and violated due process | State: Claims either were or could have been raised at trial/direct appeal and are barred by res judicata | Court: Affirmed — claims are barred by res judicata |
| Whether res judicata improperly barred claims about withheld/exculpatory evidence and improper witness evidence (claims 2,5-9,15,21-23) | Myers: Failure to produce surveillance video and admission of hearsay/perjured testimony violated due process and exculpatory-evidence rules | State: These issues were or could have been raised on direct appeal and are barred by res judicata | Court: Affirmed — barred by res judicata |
| Whether res judicata incorrectly barred challenge to the unidentified third party who allegedly conveyed a threat to counsel (claims 1,3) | Myers: The source of the alleged threat was not established in the record and this deprived him of due process | State: The claim could have been raised earlier and is barred by res judicata | Court: Affirmed — barred by res judicata |
| Whether material evidence lacking probative value was improperly admitted (claims 10-13) | Myers: Trial court admitted evidence that lacked probative value, violating due process and fair trial rights | State: The evidentiary complaint could have been raised at trial/direct appeal and is barred by res judicata | Court: Affirmed — barred by res judicata |
Key Cases Cited
- Gondor v. State, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, 860 N.E.2d 77 (2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for postconviction-relief denials)
- Steffen v. State, 70 Ohio St.3d 399, 639 N.E.2d 67 (1994) (postconviction relief is a collateral civil attack to reach evidence outside the record)
- Calhoun v. State, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999) (postconviction relief is not a second chance to relitigate claims)
- Szefcyk v. State, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 671 N.E.2d 233 (1996) (res judicata applies in postconviction proceedings)
- Perry v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967) (doctrine that a final judgment bars relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)