State of Ohio v. Craig R. Myers
Court of Appeals No. WD-16-026
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY
Decided: March 31, 2017
[Cite as State v. Myers, 2017-Ohio-1220.]
Trial Court No. 13 CR 141
JENSEN, P.J.
{¶ 1} Pro se appellant, Craig Myers, appeals the April 27, 2016 judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, wherein the court found appellant’s claims precluded under the doctrine of res judicata. Finding no reversible error on record or in the judgment, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Appellant sets forth the following assignments of error:
- Trial Courts analysis of res judicata was erroneous, when ruling on claims number 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. The Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the finder of fact should have been informed that the Defendant was being singled out for malicious prosecution during pretrial proceedings. The jury should have been well informed that the Defendant’s bond had been revoked unlawfully, and that the Defendant was held in jail unlawfully at the time of the March 4, 2013 recorded phone call. Evidence of a pattern of corrupt activity between State Prosecution and Defense Counsel William Hayes and Sheriff Deputy Detective Ginnie Barta certainly would have changed the verdict of February 4, 2015 trial. Violating the Defendant’s due process right as to a fair trial. (Sic)
- Trial Courts analysis of res judicata was erroneous, when ruling on clаims number 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 21, 22, and 23. The Trial Court has failed to up hold the standard as to exculpatory evidence rule. State Prosecution failed to present the video surveillance footage of the Wood County Justice Center for March 5, 2013. Introduction of hearsay, as well as perjurеd testimony from both State Witness’s was prejudice to the Defendant violating his due process as to a fair trial. (Sic)
Trial Courts analysis of res judiсata was erroneous, when ruling on claims number 1, 3. The Trail Court failed to review that the person and third party that conveyed the alleged threat of harm to the Attorney Hayes has never been established and is outside of the record. Violating the Defendant’s due procеss as to a fair trial. (Sic) - Trial Court analysis of res judicata was erroneous, when ruling on claims number 10, 11, 12, and 13. Trial Court allowed the introduction of material evidence that failed to establish probative value as to the charged offense. Violating the Defendant’s due process right as to a fair trial. (Sic)
Facts
{¶ 3} Appellant threatened to harm his public defender and was charged with retaliation in violation of
{¶ 4} Appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty. He was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment, which was ordered to run consecutively with an eight year total sentence imposed in case No. 11-CR-364. Appellant timely appealed the sentence March 5, 2015.
{¶ 5} On direct appeal, apрellant through counsel assigned two errors: “I. The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding beyond a reasonаble doubt that Appellant was guilty of retaliation[;]” and “II. Appellant’s conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence presented by the state and was contrary to
{¶ 6} On May 18, 2015, and while his appeal was pending, appellant petitioned the trial court pro se for postconviction relief under
Standard of Review
{¶ 7} An appellаte court reviews a trial court’s denial of a petition for postconviction relief under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, 860 N.E.2d 77, ¶ 58. Abuse оf discretion connotes more than an error of law; it implies the trial court acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or unconscionably. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
Law and Analysis
{¶ 8} Thrоugh the four assigned errors, appellant ultimately argues for postconviction relief by asserting the trial court and his trial and appеllate counsel committed a litany of errors. Appellee, the state of Ohio, did not file a brief on appeal.
{¶ 9} “A petition for postconviction relief under
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11} Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars а convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an appeаl from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial, which resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment. (Quotations omitted.) See State v. Adams, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 16CA23, 2017-Ohio-519, ¶ 12, citing State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraph ninе of the syllabus. Therefore, any claim “that could have been raised on direct appeal and was not
{¶ 12} In this case, appellant claims evidentiary errors and violations of due proсess, of right to fair trial, and of right to effective counsel. He asserts that as a result of constitutional violations, the April 27, 2016 judgment is void or voidable and he should be afforded relief under
{¶ 13} Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its April 27, 2016 judgment, and appellant’s assigned errors are not well-taken.
Conclusion
{¶ 14} The judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
_______________________________
James D. Jensen, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE