STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. GREGORY T. GADDY, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 1-20-41
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY
March 8, 2021
[Cite as State v. Gaddy, 2021-Ohio-637.]
Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR 2008 0056 Judgment Affirmed
Eric J. Allen for Appellant
Jana E. Emerick for Appellee
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Gregory T. Gaddy, Jr. (“Gaddy”) brings this appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Gaddy alleges that the trial court erred by denying the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing and by failing to prepare and file findings of fact and conclusions of law. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On February 14, 2008, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Gaddy on one count of Aggravated Burglary with a firearm specification in violation of
{¶3} On April 3, 2019, Gaddy entered into a negotiated plea of guilty where he agreed to enter pleas of guilty to the offenses and the State conceded that merger applied to the two counts. Doc. 80. The trial court accepted the pleas of guilty and
{¶4} On the direct appeal, Gaddy alleged that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. State v. Gaddy, 3d Dist. Allen Nos. 1-19-35, 1-19-36, 2020-Ohio-430. Gaddy alleged that counsel was ineffective by 1) failing to collect hospital records, and by 2) failing to share discovery. Id. at ¶ 22-24. After reviewing the record, this Court determine that counsel was not ineffective. Id. at ¶ 25.
{¶5} On July 30, 2020, Gaddy filed a petition to set aside or vacate a conviction alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Doc. 124.
First Assignment of Error
The trial court abused its discretion in overruling [Gaddy’s] petition for post-conviction relief.
Second Assignment of Error
The trial court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing.
Third Assignment of Error
The trial court failed to prepare and file findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by
As all of these assignment of errors address the denial of a petition for postconviction relief, we will address them together.
{¶6} A petition for post-conviction relief is governed by
(D) * * * Before granting a hearing on a petition filed under division (A)(1)(a)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section the court shall determine whether there are substantive grounds for relief. In making such a determination, the court shall consider, in addition to the petition, the supporting affidavits, and the documentary evidence, all the files and records pertaining to the proceedings against the petitioner, including, but not limited to, the indictment, the court’s journal entries, the journalized records of the clerk of the court, and the court reporter’s transcript. * * * If the court dismisses the petition, it shall make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to such dismissal. * * *
* * *
(F) Unless the petition and the files and records of the case show the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues even if a direct appeal of the case is pending. * * *
* * *
(H) If the court does not find grounds for granting relief, it shall make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall enter judgment denying relief on the petition.
{¶7} Here, Gaddy claims that the trial court erred by denying his petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing and without issuing statements of fact and conclusions of law. When reviewing the determination of a trial court in reviewing a petition for post-conviction relief, the standard of review to be used is whether the
{¶8} Gaddy claims in his petition that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel before he entered his guilty pleas and thus he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas. However, a review of the record shows that Gaddy raised the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel before the trial court and was given a full hearing on it. In his direct appeal, Gaddy challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel and his request for new counsel. The issues raised in this appeal are very similar to those raised on direct appeal. This Court has already determined that Gaddy was not denied the effective assistance of counsel.
Gaddy also claimed that his trial counsel failed to share discovery with him—specifically that the State had a 9-1-1 call from the victim and DNA testing results from the crime scene. Gaddy argued that his lack of familiarity with the prosecution‘s evidence coupled with his dissatisfaction with his trial counsel‘s cross-examination of one of the victims led him to conclude that he had no choice but to plead guilty to the aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery charges and firearm specifications after the
first day of trial rather than allowing the case to be decided by a jury. Gaddy stated his pleas were tendered out of “pure emotion” to avoid a longer prison term. (Id. at 9). However, on cross-examination, Gaddy admitted that trial counsel shared the DNA results and other discovery evidence with him prior to trial. Gaddy nevertheless continued to express dissatisfaction with the chosen trial strategy and tactics of trial counsel. Notably, the transcript from the first day and a half of trial fails to substantiate Gaddy‘s claims that his trial counsel‘s performance was deficient. Moreover, the record indicates that once Gaddy stated his desire to enter into a plea agreement, trial counsel competently negotiated for a plea deal that involved the State conceding to a merger of the offenses, which reduced Gaddy‘s maximum prison time exposure by half.
As a result, we find that Gaddy has failed to establish that trial counsel performed deficiently while representing him in this matter and thus has failed to substantiate his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Gaddy, supra at ¶ 23-25.
{¶9} Pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel may not raise in any proceeding, except a direct appeal, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at trial. State v. Reynolds, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-01-11, 2002-Ohio-2823, ¶ 14. “Furthermore, a defendant’s failure to appeal a judgment of conviction bars as res judicata any subsequent attempt to litigate issues that could have been raised on direct appeal.” Id. “More simply put, claims that were or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal are not permitted in a post-conviction review.” Id. at ¶ 15. Here, Gaddy is arguing in his petition the same
{¶10} Gaddy also argues that the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing before denying his petition. A trial court may dismiss a petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing where the doctrine of res judicata bars the consideration of the claims made in the petition. State v. Lawson, 103 Ohio App.3d 307, 313, 659 N.E.2d 362 (12th Dist. 1995). The language in
{¶11} Finally, Gaddy claims that the trial court erred by not making findings of fact and conclusions of law. This court agrees that the statute requires the trial court to do so. This court also acknowledges that the trial court did not specifically file a document labelled findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, there is no requirement in the statute that the document be so labelled. A review of the record shows that the trial court’s judgment entry denying the petition fully set forth
{¶12} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.
/hls