2021 Ohio 1921
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- In 2014 Turner was indicted on multiple felonies (breaking-and-entering, theft, intimidation) arising from vehicle break-ins; he proceeded pro se at trial.
- The state dismissed 14 counts at its request, leaving seven theft counts and one intimidation count; a jury convicted Turner on all eight counts.
- Turner filed a direct appeal; this court affirmed the convictions in State v. Turner (Turner I).
- Turner later moved to vacate or suspend payment of fines/costs and to stay restitution/fines/costs; the trial court denied those motions on July 17, 2020.
- Turner raised 14 assignments of error on appeal alleging Brady/discovery violations, confrontation and counsel-waiver defects under Crim.R. 44(C), double jeopardy, prosecutorial misconduct, judicial bias/racism, and admiralty/jurisdictional theories.
- The appellate court concluded Turner’s claims were either inadequately argued or barred by res judicata and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Turner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Turner’s motions to vacate/suspend fines/costs and to stay restitution | The State did not need to defend the denial on new grounds; Turner failed to show error or preserve arguments supporting reversal | Turner argued multiple constitutional and procedural defects (Brady, confrontation, counsel-waiver, prosecutorial misconduct) that warranted relief from fines/costs and a stay of restitution | Affirmed: Turner failed to meaningfully brief why the motions should be reversed and many claims are precluded by res judicata |
| Validity of waiver of counsel under Crim.R. 44(C) / Plain error | The State maintained the record showed Turner knowingly waived counsel (no reversible plain error) | Turner asserted there was no written, signed waiver of counsel and sought automatic reversal under Crim.R. 44(C) | Affirmed: Turner did not properly develop the argument on appeal; claim could have been raised on direct appeal and is barred by res judicata |
| Brady / discovery and confrontation claims (911 call, photos, witness availability) | The State disputed that withheld material entitled Turner to relief; issues were not properly argued on this appeal | Turner alleged Brady violations, lost evidence, and that dismissal of certain counts deprived him of confrontation rights | Affirmed: Claims relate to trial-phase issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal and are barred by res judicata; appellant failed to brief them adequately |
| Alleged judicial/prosecutorial bias and other substantive defenses (double jeopardy, admiralty jurisdiction) | The State denied actionable bias and maintained no reversible error shown | Turner alleged racism, bias in bond and jury impartiality, double jeopardy, and non-waivable admiralty jurisdiction defects | Affirmed: Arguments lack proper development; many are barred by res judicata and provide no basis for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (established Ohio rule applying res judicata to criminal appeals)
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (issues that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred)
- State v. Hutton, 100 Ohio St.3d 176 (2003) (explains preservation of issues and limits on collateral review)
- State v. D'Ambrosio, 73 Ohio St.3d 141 (1995) (discusses finality of convictions and scope of postconviction claims)
- Lynn v. Limbert, 117 Ohio App.3d 236 (1997) (appellate precedent cited by appellant regarding trial-court procedures)
- State v. Crenshaw, 145 Ohio App.3d 86 (2001) (appellate authority cited by appellant concerning postconviction relief)