[Cite as State v. Carley, 2023-Ohio-4646.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

No. 112393

v. :

RICHARD E. CARLEY, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 21, 2023

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. CR-97-355976-B

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Kristen Hatcher, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellee. 

Kimberly Kendall Corral, for appellant. 

LISA B. FORBES, J.:

Richard E. Carley (“Carley”) appeals the trial court’s journal entry 

denying his motion for DNA testing pursuant to R.C. 2953.72. After reviewing the 

facts of the case and pertinent law, we affirm the trial court’s decision.
I. Facts and Procedural History

Following a jury trial, Carley was found guilty of multiple counts

including, aggravated murder with firearm, felony-murder, and mass-murder 

specifications and aggravated robbery with firearm specifications. Prior to 

sentencing, with the agreement of the prosecutor, Carley withdrew his former not 

guilty plea. The indictment against Carley was amended to assert two counts of 

murder. Carley entered a plea of guilty to two counts of murder, felonies of the first

degree, in violation of R.C. 2903.02 with firearm specifications on each. Carley was 

sentenced to an aggregate prison sentence of 33 years to life.

Carley appealed arguing his plea was invalid because his counsel was 

ineffective. This court affirmed his conviction and sentence finding that the trial 

court complied with Crim.R. 11 when taking his plea and that Carley had not 

demonstrated that he was inappropriately induced or coerced into entering his 

guilty plea. State v. Carley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81001, 2004-Ohio-1901, ¶ 14.

On June 30, 2022, Carley filed a motion for postconviction DNA 

testing pursuant to R.C. 2953.72. The trial court denied Carley’s motion, finding 

that he was “not an ‘eligible offender’ as defined in R.C. 2953.72(C)(2).”

It is from this order that Carley appeals, raising the following 

assignment of error: “[t]he trial court erred when it ruled that Richard Carley is an 

ineligible offender under ORC 2953.72(C)(2) because Richard Carley was found 

guilty of a felony offense by a jury.”
II. Law and Analysis

An offender is eligible to request DNA testing under R.C. 2953.71 to 

2953.81, if 

(a) The offense for which the offender claims to be an eligible offender

is a felony, and the offender was convicted by a judge or jury of that

offense.

R.C. 2953.72(C)(1).

An offender is ineligible for postconviction DNA testing “regarding 

any offense to which the offender pleaded guilty or no contest.” R.C. 2953.72(C)(2)

We acknowledge that a jury originally found Carley guilty of 

aggravated murder and aggravated robbery. Prior to being sentenced, Carley pled 

guilty to two counts of murder, along with firearm specifications. Carley is presently 

serving a prison sentence for those two felonies to which he pled guilty. 

By seeking DNA testing under R.C. 2953.72(C)(1), Carley seeks to call 

into question his convictions for murder and the sentence he is currently serving. 

Therefore, the offenses for which Carley claims to be an eligible offender are the two 

counts of murder. Because Carley pled guilty to both murder counts, he is ineligible 

for DNA testing pursuant to R.C. 2953.72(C)(2).

Carley’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the 

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR