[Cite as State v. Palmer, 2022-Ohio-2339.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

MAHONING COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY PALMER,

Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Case No. 21 MA 0052

Criminal Appeal from the

Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio

Case No. 2018 CR 660

BEFORE:

Cheryl L. Waite, Gene Donofrio, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.

JUDGMENT:

Affirmed.

Atty. Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecutor, and Atty. Ralph M. Rivera, Assistant 

Chief Prosecuting Attorney, Criminal Division, 21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor, 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jeffrey Palmer, Pro se, #764663, North Central Correctional Complex, P. O. Box 1812, 

Marion, Ohio 43302, Defendant-Appellant.
– 2 –

Case No. 21 MA 0052

Dated: June 28, 2022

WAITE, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Jeffrey Palmer, appeals the decision of the Mahoning County 

Court of Common Pleas to overrule the motion to vacate or set aside his judgment of 

conviction or sentence. Based on the following, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Factual and Procedural History

{¶2} T.B. lived in Boardman, Ohio along with her three children. In May of 2015, 

T.B. met Appellant through an online dating site where he went by the name “Israel.” 

Appellant moved into T.B.’s apartment sometime in June or July of 2015 and lived there 

until May or June of 2016.

{¶3} T.B.’s child, A.B., was ten years old when Appellant moved into the 

apartment. T.B. was employed as a home health aide. Appellant was unemployed. At 

trial in this matter, T.B. stated that she worked two hours in the morning from 8:00 to 10:00 

a.m. and two hours in the evening, from around 8:00 to 10:00 p.m. She explained that 

while she only worked two hours at a time, she was away from home longer than that 

because she used public transportation to get to and from work. She worked seven days 

a week and was off every other weekend. While T.B. was at work and when she ran 

errands, Appellant was home alone with her children. T.B. noticed that A.B.'s behavior 

began to change after Appellant moved in. She became quiet and kept to herself. T.B. 

questioned A.B. about her change in behavior but A.B. denied that there was a problem. 

T.B. testified that her sexual relationship with Appellant was not typical. Eventually, the 
– 3 –

Case No. 21 MA 0052

relationship ended and Appellant moved out. Subsequently, Appellant asked T.B. to move 

with her children into his house in Cleveland, but she refused.

{¶4} In April of 2018, A.B. told her mother that Appellant had been sexually 

abusing her the entire time he lived in their apartment. T.B. took the child to the emergency 

room to be examined. A.B. told her mother that Appellant had different types of sex with 

her multiple times a day, every day. She said the abuse occurred while T.B. was at work. 

At trial, A.B. testified that at night, while getting ready to shower or getting her clothes out

for the next day, Appellant would comment on her clothing and compliment A.B. on her 

appearance. A.B. testified that she stopped wearing nightgowns and wore pajamas

because Appellant's comments made her feel uncomfortable. A.B. testified that the abuse 

almost always occurred in her mother's room because it was the only room with a lock on 

the door, however, Appellant abused her multiple times in other rooms while her mother 

and the younger children were sleeping. Appellant offered to buy her toys and snacks as 

the abuse continued but threatened A.B. not to tell her mother. A.B. said she never told 

anyone about the abuse while Appellant was living in the apartment. She testified that 

the abuse lasted for about one year until Appellant moved out. After Appellant moved to 

Cleveland, he continued to contact A.B. and talked about having her family move in with 

him. She finally told her mother after she had a nightmare about her mother leaving her.

{¶5} In Appellant's direct appeal we summarized the testimony offered at trial as 

follows:

The testimony of A.B. and her mother provided additional details of the 

sexual acts. A.B. testified that when she was ten years old, appellant came 

to live with them, and he watched her and her siblings while her mother 
– 4 –

Case No. 21 MA 0052

worked. (Tr. at 175). She testified that the first time that appellant touched 

her, she was on the couch in the living room on her tablet when he started 

asking her about the birds and the bees. (Tr. at 179). She stated he told 

her to get up and go to her mom's room, he shut the door, laid her down on 

the bed, and touched her vaginal area. (Tr. at 180).

She testified that appellant's conduct then escalated each time, such as 

taking out his penis and rubbing it against her “private part.” (Tr. at 81). She 

testified that they went into her mother's room because it was the only door 

that locked. While initially she stated that appellant did not put his penis or 

his fingers inside her vagina, she testified that it hurt when appellant touched 

her “private part.” (Tr. at 183-185). She later testified that it would hurt when 

appellant kept forcing his penis inside of her vagina and he did this at least 

ten times. (Tr. at 190-193). She also testified that sometimes when he 

rubbed his fingers on her “privates,” it would hurt and this happened more 

than five times. (Tr. at 193). She stated that appellant put his mouth on her 

“private area” more times than she could count, but then narrowed it to more 

than 10 times but less than 15 times. (Tr. at 191-192). She also provided 

detail about times when the acts would occur, such as once when she came 

inside to get a glass of water while her siblings were outside and appellant 

called her into her mother's room, pulled her pants down, bent her over the 

bed, and put his penis “between her legs.” (Tr. at 185). She further testified 

that sexual acts would occur twice a week and sometimes more than once 

per day. (Tr. at 191). A.B. also related that appellant would rub Vaseline on 
– 5 –

Case No. 21 MA 0052

his penis and told her that if he could continue with her, he would never touch 

her mom again. (Tr. at 189).

State v. Palmer, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 19 MA 0108, 2021-Ohio-4639, ¶ 21-22.

{¶6} Appellant was indicted by direct presentment to the Mahoning County Grand 

Jury on twelve counts of rape of a minor under the age of thirteen and one count of gross 

sexual imposition of a minor under the age of thirteen. A jury trial began on September 3, 

2019. Along with the testimony of A.B. and her mother, the State's witnesses included a 

neighbor, Boardman Township police officers, a social worker employed by Akron Children's 

Hospital, a nurse practitioner at Akron Children's Hospital in the Child Advocacy Center, and 

a second social worker from the Child Advocacy Center who had interviewed A.B. Appellant 

was the only witness to testify for the defense.

{¶7} At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts. 

Appellant was sentenced to 10 years to life in prison on each of the twelve rape 

convictions and 5 years on the gross sexual imposition conviction. The court ran Counts 

1, 2 and 3 for rape concurrently with each other; Counts 4, 5 and 6 for rape concurrently 

with each other but consecutively to Counts 1, 2, and 3; Counts 7, 8 and 9 for rape 

concurrently with each other but consecutively to Counts 1, 2 and 3, and Counts 4, 5, and 

6; Counts 10, 11 and 12 for rape concurrently with each other; but consecutively to Counts 

1, 2, and 3, 4, 5 and 6, and 7, 8, and 9; and Count 13 for gross sexual imposition 

concurrently with all sentences. In total, Appellant was sentenced to 40 years to life in 

prison.

{¶8} Appellant appealed his convictions and sentence. Id. He challenged the 

sufficiency of the indictment, the jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, and raised
– 6 –

Case No. 21 MA 0052

evidentiary errors. Appellant also claimed to have received ineffective assistance of 

counsel, and alleged that there was cumulative error in reaching his guilty verdict. On 

September 29, 2021, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court. While his direct appeal 

was pending, Appellant filed a motion to vacate or set aside the judgment of conviction 

or sentence on February 1, 2021. On March 11, 2021, the state filed a motion for 

judgment on the pleadings and on April 23, 2021, Appellant filed a reply. On May 4, 2021, 

the trial court issued a judgment entry, without a hearing, overruling Appellant's motion 

and granting the state’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

{¶9} In this appeal of the denial of his motion for postconviction relief, Appellant 

advances eight assignments of error. Assignments one through seven allege ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Assignment of error number eight argues cumulative error.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

Appellant was denied due process and the effective assistance of counsel, 

a violation of the 5, 6, and 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; Section 

16 Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution, when trial counsel misleads Appellant 

into unknowingly and involuntarily waived his speedy trial right.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel, a violation of due 

process of the 6th and 14th Amendment to the United States const. and 

Section 16, Article 1 of the Ohio Const., when trial counsel failed to conduct 

a reasonable investigation to determine possible defenses.
– 7 –

Case No. 21 MA 0052

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3

Trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to present expert 

testimony to rebut the prosecution's case and expert testimony, and failing 

to provide expert testimony regarding Petitioner's erectile dysfunction and 

medication side effects, violating his 6th and 14th Amendments of due 

process.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4

Petitioner was denied due process and the effective assistance of counsel 

when his trial attorney failed to raise a timely carbon copy objection on the 

12 rape counts pursuant to Crim.R.12(C) in violation of his 6th and 14th 

Amendment, Section 16, 10, art 1.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5

Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel, a violation of due 

process of the 6th and 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution and section 

10 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution, when counsel failed to use information in 

discovery to make a defense and assist him in preparing the case before trial.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 6

Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel, a violation of due 

process of the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Section 

16 Art. 1 of the Ohio Constitution, when trial counsel failed to argue and make 
– 8 –

Case No. 21 MA 0052

a record that the state had exercised its peremptory strikes in a racially 

discriminatory manner.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 7

Appellant was denied due process and the effective assistance of counsel, 

a violation of the 6th and 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 

Section 16 Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution, when counsel failed to convey 

the state's plea offer to Appellant.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 8

Appellant was denied a fair trial because of cumulative errors.

{¶10} Postconviction relief allows a petitioner to collaterally attack a criminal 

conviction by filing a petition to set aside the judgment where the petitioner's constitutional 

rights were denied to such an extent the conviction is void or voidable under the Ohio or 

United States Constitutions. R.C. 2953.21(A); State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 

N.E.2d 104 (1967); paragraph four of the syllabus. A common pleas court may grant 

relief from a conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.21 et seq., the postconviction statutes, 

where petitioner proves that he suffered a violation of his constitutional rights during the 

proceedings resulting in the conviction. See R.C. 2953.21(A)(1).

{¶11} The petitioner has the initial burden to demonstrate in the petition, supporting 

affidavits, and the files and records of the case, that there are “substantive grounds for 

relief.” R.C. 2953.21(C). Substantive grounds for relief exist if the petition presents a prima 

facie claim there was a constitutional violation. The petition must contain factual allegations 
– 9 –

Case No. 21 MA 0052

that cannot be determined by an examination of the trial record. State v. Milanovich, 42 

Ohio St.2d 46, 50, 325 N.E.2d 540 (1975).

{¶12} In resolving a postconviction petition, a trial court may exercise one of three 

options:

The first is to deny the petition without hearing, in accordance with the law as 

set forth in R.C. 2953.21 and the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. 

Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999). The second is to act 

on the state's motion for summary judgment by applying the standards set 

forth in Civ.R. 56. The third is to schedule an evidentiary hearing on [the 

defendant's] petition, at which time the trial court, as the trier of fact, is 

authorized to weigh the evidence and enter judgment.

State v. Paige, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 0146, 2018-Ohio-2782, ¶ 16.

{¶13} Appellate courts review a trial court's ruling on a petition for postconviction 

relief for abuse of discretion. State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, 860 

N.E.2d 77, ¶ 58. Abuse of discretion implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, 

arbitrary or unconscionable. State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 

(1980); see also Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 

(1983). Moreover, abuse of discretion describes a judgment that comports with neither

the record nor with reason. See, e.g., State v. Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. 667, 676-678, 148 

N.E. 362 (1925). 

{¶14} A postconviction petition may also be dismissed without hearing where the 

claims are barred by res judicata. State v. West, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 07 JE 26, 2009-
– 10 –

Case No. 21 MA 0052

Ohio-3347, ¶ 24. Res judicata bars any claim or defense that was raised, or could have 

been raised, in an earlier proceeding:

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars the 

convicted defendant from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an 

appeal 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.

Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d at 180-181.

{¶15} A trial court may dismiss a petition for postconviction based on res judicata 

when the defendant, represented by new counsel in the direct appeal, fails to raise the 

issue of trial counsel’s competence when the issue could have been determined without 

resort to evidence outside of the record. State v. Carosiello, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 18 

CO 0018, 2019-Ohio-2705, ¶ 28. The Twelfth District has stated:

[E]vidence presented outside the record must meet some threshold 

standard of cogency; otherwise it would be too easy to defeat the holding 

of Perry by simply attaching as exhibits evidence which is only marginally 

significant and does not advance the petitioner's claim beyond mere 

hypothesis and a desire for further discovery. [State v.] Coleman, [1st Dist. 

No.] C-900811, [1993 WL 74756] at 7.

State v. Lawson, 103 Ohio App.3d 307, 315, 659 N.E.2d 362 (12th Dist.1995).
– 11 –

Case No. 21 MA 0052

{¶16} Appellant’s postconviction petition was filed with the trial court while his direct 

appeal was pending in this Court. Appellant raises many of the same errors in his petition 

that were addressed in his direct appeal. For example, Appellant's fourth assignment of 

error regarding trial counsel's alleged failure to object to the multiple rape counts in the 

indictment was addressed on direct appeal where we concluded that the indictment was 

sufficient to support multiple charges. Palmer, ¶ 31.

{¶17} It is apparent Appellant's claims regarding ineffective assistance set forth in 

his fourth assignment of error are barred by res judicata and are overruled.

{¶18} Regarding the remaining assignments of error, Appellant presents no 

evidence outside of the record in support of these claims. Instead, Appellant refers to 

multiple parts of the trial transcript and other evidence already in the record to support his

arguments. As Appellant relies on no evidence outside of the record and all of the 

remaining claims in his petition could and should have been raised and addressed in his

direct appeal, these claims were properly dismissed on the basis of res judicata. 

Carosiello, ¶ 28.

{¶19} Appellant’s petition appears to be merely a restatement and embellishment 

of the clams he argued on direct appeal. Not only does Appellant fail to provide any 

evidence in support of these claims dehors the record, the petition contains allegations that 

have no evidentiary or factual support at all. Appellant's claims amount to his speculation 

that a constitutional violation may have occurred and a desire for additional discovery, and 

are in no way based on any real evidence not contained in his record of trial. Lawson, 315.

{¶20} All of the errors alleged, whether in the multiple claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel or in the cumulative error allegations, are based on information 
– 12 –

Case No. 21 MA 0052

already in the existing record in this case. These issues could and should have been 

raised by Appellant's new counsel in his direct appeal of this matter. Therefore, all of 

Appellant's assignments of error are barred by res judicata and are overruled. Carosiello, 

¶ 28. The trial court's denial of Appellant’s postconviction relief petition without a hearing 

is hereby affirmed.

Donofrio, P.J., concurs. 

Robb, J., concurs. 
[Cite as State v. Palmer, 2022-Ohio-2339.]

For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignments of error 

are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against 

the Appellant.

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in 

this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a 

certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.

JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE

JUDGE GENE DONOFRIO

JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.