State v. HousleyState v. Housley
PAUL M. WATKINS, Atty. Reg. No. 0090868, Miami County Prosecutor‘s Office, Safety Building, 201 West Main Street, Troy, Ohio 45373
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
TIMOTHY HOUSLEY, #A730-882, P.O. Box 209, Orient, Ohio 43146
Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se
FROELICH, J.
{¶ 2} In October 2016, Housley pled guilty in the Miami County Court of Common Pleas to trafficking in drugs, a second-dеgree felony, and two counts of possession of drugs, both third-degree felonies. The parties agreed to a five-year sentence, and the State agreed to take no position on judicial releasе. At sentencing, the trial court imposed five years for Count 1 and 12-month sentences for Counts 2 and 3, to be served concurrently. The court further ordered Housley to pay restitution of $125 and court costs, and it suspended his driver‘s license for two years. Housley did not appeal his conviction.
{¶ 3} In July 2017, Housley sought judicial release, which was denied.
{¶ 4} In December 2017, the State filed an application for the destruction or disposal of evidеnce seized from Housley by the Troy Police Department, including cell phones, computers, currency, and a handgun. The court granted the motion. Housley subsequently sought the return of additional property seized by the police, including a safe. The trial court denied Housley‘s motion for lack of jurisdiction. Housley appealed the trial court‘s ruling. See State v. Housley, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2018-CA-4, 2018-Ohio-4140. The outcomes of Housley‘s 2018 appeal and a subsequent apрeal related to Housley‘s motion for return of property are not relevant to this appeal.
{¶ 5} On December 14, 2017, Housley moved to withdraw his guilty plea due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Hе claimed that he declined to pursue his motion
{¶ 6} In April 2018, the trial court deniеd Housley‘s motion to withdraw his plea. Housley did not appeal the trial court‘s ruling.
{¶ 7} On March 7, 2019, Housley filed a “motion to vacate a void judgment of conviction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Housley emphasizеd that the State acknowledged in its appellate brief in Case No. 2018-CA-4 that Housley was a visitor at the home that was searched and where drugs were found that brought about the charges in this case (2016-CR-348). Housley argued that thе information was exculpatory, that the State had violated its duty under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) to disclose it, and that the State‘s actions divested the trial court of
{¶ 8} The State opposed Housley‘s motion to vacate, construing the motion as a petition for postconviction relief. The State asserted that it fully complied with Brady, that Housley‘s petition was untimely, and that his claim of newly exculpatory evidence was “blatantly false.” Housley filed a reply memorandum, disclaiming that he had filed a petition for postconviction relief or a
{¶ 9} The trial court denied Housley‘s motion, concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction over Housley‘s criminal case for drug trafficking and possession of drugs. The court noted that the “primary issue raised by Defendant is that his constitutional rights were violated by the Stаte because he was a mere visitor in the house of the co-defendant, and the State withheld this exculpatory information from him.” The court found that Housley‘s claim fell with
{¶ 10} Housley appeals from the trial court‘s ruling, raising arguments similar to those in his motion to vacate.
{¶ 11} As an initial matter, we find no error with the trial court‘s conclusion that it
{¶ 12} Pursuant to
{¶ 13} Housley originally was indicted on two counts of trafficking in drugs, illegal manufacture of drugs, and two counts of possession of drugs, all felonies. He subsequently pled guilty to amended charges of trafficking in drugs and two counts of possession, as charged by information. All of the charges fell within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Miami County Court of Commоn Pleas.
{¶ 14} In general, where a trial court “erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction” but “did not act without jurisdiction,” the resulting judgment is voidable rather than void. Dunbar v. State, 136 Ohio St.3d 181, 2013-Ohio-2163, 992 N.E.2d 1111, ¶ 15. Housley asserts that the judgment in his case is void due to the actions of the Statе, specifically
{¶ 15} Hоusley further claims that the trial court should not have reviewed his motion as a petition for postconviction relief, as he did not seek relief under
{¶ 16} Pursuant to
{¶ 18} Moreover, even if we were to consider Housley‘s argument that the State withheld discovery and Brady material when it allegedly failed to inform him that it knew that he was a visitor, we would find no merit to Housley‘s claim.
{¶ 19} Brady held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process when the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Kellogg-Martin, 124 Ohio St.3d 415, 2010-Ohio-282, 923 N.E.2d 125, ¶ 24, citing Brady at 87. In order to establish a Brady violation, the defendant must demonstrate that (1) the prosecution failed to disclose evidence upon request; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence was material. State v. Wade, 2d Dist. Clark No. 06-CA-108, 2007-Ohio-6611, ¶ 12. Evidence suppressed by the State “shall be deemed material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” State v. Aldridge, 120 Ohio App.3d 122, 145, 697 N.E.2d 228 (2d Dist.1997), quoting State v. Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48, 529 N.E.2d 898 (1988), paragraph five of the syllabus.
{¶ 20} “The rule in Brady only applies to evidence unknown to the defendant at the
{¶ 21} Here, Housley has not demonstrated a Brady or discovery violation by the State. The page of the State‘s appellate brief upon which Housley relies simply noted that Housley had argued that he was a visitor at the residence; the State did not concede that he was a visitor or cite to evidence establishing where Housley lived. And, Housley has not identified any evidence that was withheld by the State, either related to his residency or otherwise. Moreover, as stated above, whether Housley wаs or was not a visitor, rather than a resident, was within Housley‘s knowledge at the time of his arrest and throughout his case. Accordingly, even considering Housley‘s motion on the merits, Housley has not demonstrated that a Brady or discovery violation occurred to warrant the vacation of his conviction.
{¶ 22} The trial court‘s judgment will be affirmed.
HALL, J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Paul M. Watkins
Timothy Housley
Hon. Jeannine N. Pratt