State v. MoodyState v. Moody
. . . . . . . . . . .
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on July 17, 2026, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Costs to be paid as stated in
Pursuant to
For the court,
RONALD C. LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE
EPLEY, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.
CURTIS ANTHONY MOODY, Appellant, Pro Se
ANDREW T. FRENCH, Attorney for Appellee
LEWIS, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant Curtis Anthony Moody appeals from the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court‘s order denying his January 22, 2025 petition for postconviction relief. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} In Novеmber 2015, Moody was convicted, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder (proximate result of felonious assault), two counts of felonious assault, and one count of having weapons while under disability. Moody was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 21 years to life. Moody appealed. We overruled his six assignments of error and affirmed his convictions. State v. Moody, 2016-Ohio-8366 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 3} On January 18, 2017, Moody filed his first petition for postconviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because he did not investigate alibi witnesses that would have proved Moody‘s innocence. The trial court denied the petition, finding it untimely and concluding that Moody had not made the showings necessary to overcome the untimeliness. Moody appealed. We affirmed the triаl court‘s judgment because Moody had failed to establish that he had been unavoidably prevented from timely filing his petition and had failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that, but for a constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty. State v. Moody, 2018-Ohio-2561, ¶ 5-6 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 5} On June 24, 2022, Moody filed a second petition for postconviction relief, claiming that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to (1) impeach Moody‘s mother, (2) file a motion for a continuance, and (3) investigate further evidence. Id. at ¶ 6. The trial court concluded that Moody‘s petition was untimely and barred by res judicata. Id. at ¶ 7. On March 8, 2024, we affirmed the trial court‘s judgment on these same grounds. Regarding res judicata, we explained, “Moody‘s present claims were either raised in his prior appeal and overruled by this court, or could have been raised, but were not, when he filed his direct appeal and/or prior petition for postconviction relief.” Id. at ¶ 17.
{¶ 6} On January 22, 2025, Moody filed a motion to vacate his sentence due to plain error “pursuant to
{¶ 7} On March 14, 2025, the trial court denied Moody‘s January 22, 2025 motion. The court explained that Moody‘s motion was barred by res judicata because he was “again alleging error surrounding the report, diagram, and testimony of Dr. Lehman that has already been addressed and rejected by this Court and the Second District Court of Appeаls on more than one occasion.” On November 25, 2025, Moody filed an appeal from the trial court‘s judgment.
II. Jurisdictional Issue
{¶ 8} Before we resolve Moody‘s assignment of error, we must consider whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal, because the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of the trial court‘s final entry as required by
{¶ 9} “A postconviction proceeding is not an appeal of a criminal conviction, but, rather, a collateral civil attack on the judgment.” State v. Steffen, 1994-Ohio-111, ¶ 60, citing State v. Crowder, 60 Ohio St.3d 151 (1991). Consequently, courts have held that ”
{¶ 11}
{¶ 12} In the case before us, the trial court did not make the required endorsement on the judgment entry, and the clerk did not make a notation in the appearance docket concerning the fact that it had served the required notice. In this regard, we note that there is no such notation in the docket sheet the clerk transmitted to us, nor is there any such notation in the clerk‘s online docket. As a result, although Moody‘s notice of appeаl was not filed within 30 days of the March 14, 2025 judgment, Moody‘s appeal of the trial court‘s decision was timely. Therefore, we have jurisdiction to address Moody‘s assignment of error.
{¶ 13} Moody‘s assignment of error states:
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10, AND 16, OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
{¶ 14} Although styled a motion under
{¶ 15} Pursuant to
{¶ 16} Moody‘s petition for postconviction relief did nоt establish that either exception in
{¶ 17} Moody “bears the burden of showing that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence on which the petition relies.” State v. Johnson, 2024-Ohio-134, ¶ 18. “A petitioner may make the required showing either by establishing a violation under Brady [v. Maryland], 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 [(1963)], or by demonstrating that he was previously unaware of the evidence on which the petition relies and could not have discovered it by exercising reasonable diligence.” Id.
{¶ 18} In this case, Moody‘s successive petition for postconviction relief did not demonstrate that he was previously unaware of the evidence on which the petition relied and could not have discovered it by exercising reasonable diligence. Instead, Moody simply attached to his petition a copy of a short excerpt from the November 2015 trial transcript, a copy of a September 2014 autopsy report signed by Dr. Lehman, a copy of a
{¶ 19} Moody also did not establish a Brady violation. To do so, Moody was required to establish that the State suppressed the evidence on which he relied. While Moody alleged in his petition that the State deviated from
{¶ 20} Finally, Moody‘s petition was also barred by res judicata. “The doctrine of res judicata can also apply to bar successive petitions for post-conviction reliеf.” State v. Weber, 2020-Ohio-4851, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Finfrock, 1998 WL 726478, *5 (2d Dist. Oct. 16, 1998). Indeed, “[p]ostconviction review is a narrow remedy, since res judicata bars any claim that was or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.” Steffen, 1994-Ohio-111, at ¶ 60, citing State v. Duling, 21 Ohio St.2d 13 (1970), and State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967). Under the doctrine of res judicata, “‘[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bаrs all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous
{¶ 21} The arguments raised by Moody in his January 22, 2025 petition for postconviction relief were or could have been raised in his two prior petitions for postconviction relief and his 2021 motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial. Therefore, the arguments raised in Moody‘s January 22, 2025 petition were barred by res judicata.
{¶ 22} The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Moody‘s successive petition for postconviction relief. Moody‘s assignment of error is overruled.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 23} Having overruled the assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
EPLEY, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.