[Cite as State v. Smith, 2019-Ohio-4483.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

SHAWN D. SMITH, JR. 

Defendant-Appellant 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Appellate Case No. 28127 

Trial Court Case No. 2016-CR-487/2 

(Criminal Appeal from 

Common Pleas Court) 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N 

Rendered on the 1st day of November, 2019. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Atty. Reg. No. 0069384, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, 

Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422

 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

 

CHARLES M. BLUE, Atty. Reg. No. 0074329, 401 East Stroop Road, Kettering, Ohio 

45429 

 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 

WELBAUM, P.J. 
-2- 

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Shawn D. Smith, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the 

Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his petition for post-conviction 

relief. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. 

Facts and Course of Proceedings 

{¶ 2} On March 16, 2017, a jury found Smith guilty of two counts of felony murder, 

six counts of felonious assault, one count of discharging a firearm on or near a prohibited 

premises, and several firearm specifications. Following a bench trial, the trial court also 

found Smith guilty of having weapons while under disability. After his conviction, Smith 

received an aggregate sentence of 37 years to life in prison for his offenses. Smith then 

filed a direct appeal from his conviction. On June 29, 2018, this court affirmed Smith’s 

conviction in State v. Smith, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27585, 2018-Ohio-2567. 

{¶ 3} On June 14, 2018, while Smith’s direct appeal was pending, Smith filed a pro 

se petition for post-conviction relief. In support of his petition, Smith alleged that the trial 

court’s bailiff committed misconduct during deliberations by having a discussion with the 

jury about the jury instructions. Specifically, Smith alleged that the bailiff told his trial 

counsel that the jurors had indicated they could not reach a verdict because the jury 

instructions were confusing. According to Smith, the bailiff then told his trial counsel that 

she advised the jury that “the answers” were on a certain page of the jury instructions. 

Smith asserted that his trial counsel notified him about the bailiff’s statements to the jury 

“days after” his trial. Smith also alleged that certain blood evidence was not tested and 

that the trial court should have given a jury instruction pertaining to the lack of testing. 

Smith attached no supporting affidavits to his petition nor did he provide any evidence in 
-3- 

support of the claims raised therein. 

{¶ 4} On August 24, 2018, a visiting judge who had been assigned to the case 

issued a judgment entry dismissing Smith’s petition for post-conviction relief. In 

dismissing the petition, the visiting judge found that Smith had provided no evidence to 

support the alleged communication between the trial court’s bailiff and the jury. The 

visiting judge also found that even if there were evidence of the alleged communication, 

Smith failed to provide the court with any evidence establishing that the communication 

prejudiced him. The visiting judge further found that any issue regarding the blood 

testing was a matter that should have been raised in Smith’s direct appeal and was 

therefore barred by res judicata. 

{¶ 5} Smith now appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, 

raising one assignment of error for review. 

Assignment of Error 

{¶ 6} Under his sole assignment of error, Smith contends that the trial court erred 

in dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. 

In support of this claim, Smith does not raise any argument with regard to the trial court’s 

decision on the blood testing issue. Rather, Smith only argues that the allegation of 

misconduct by the bailiff in his petition constituted substantial grounds for relief that 

warranted an evidentiary hearing. We disagree. 

{¶ 7} “ ‘[A] criminal defendant seeking to challenge his conviction through a petition 

for post[-]conviction relief is not automatically entitled to a hearing.’ ” State v. Clark, 

2017-Ohio-120, 80 N.E.3d 1251, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 
-4- 

279, 282, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999). Instead, the trial court must first determine whether 

there are substantive grounds for relief, i.e., “whether there are grounds to believe that 

‘there was such a denial or infringement of the person’s rights as to render the judgment 

void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States.’ ” 

Calhoun at 282-283, quoting R.C. 2952.21(A); R.C. 2953.21(D). Accord State v. 

Stoermer, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2019-CA-23, 2019-Ohio-3804, ¶ 16. “[N]o hearing is 

necessary, if the petition and its supporting evidentiary documents do not contain 

operative facts that would, if proven, establish a substantive ground for relief.” State v. 

Kuck, 2d Dist. Darke No. 2017-CA-15, 2018-Ohio-3290, ¶ 6, citing State v. Armstrong, 56 

Ohio App.3d 105, 108, 564 N.E.2d 1070 (8th Dist.1988). Therefore, in order to be 

entitled to a hearing, the petitioner bears the initial burden to provide evidentiary materials 

containing sufficient operative facts to demonstrate a claim of constitutional error. State 

v. Wood, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-1, 2018-Ohio-3204, ¶ 23, citing State v. Kapper, 5 

Ohio St.3d 36, 38-39, 448 N.E.2d 823 (1983). 

{¶ 8} “Broad assertions of prejudice and general conclusory allegations * * * are 

an inadequate basis upon which to impose an evidentiary hearing.” State v. Padgett, 2d 

Dist. Montgomery No. 17658, 1999 WL 1127398, *3 (Dec. 10, 1999), citing Kapper at 38 

and State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107, 111, 413 N.E.2d 819 (1980). Accord State v. 

Jordan, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27208, 2017-Ohio-7342, ¶ 12 (“[b]road conclusory 

allegations are insufficient, as a matter of law, to require a hearing”). When a petition 

does not include any affidavits or other evidentiary materials supporting the claims in the 

petition, the trial court is authorized to dismiss the petition without a hearing. State v. 

Wilkins, 127 Ohio App.3d 306, 310, 712 N.E.2d 1255 (2d Dist.1998), citing State v. 
-5- 

Pankey, 68 Ohio St.2d 58, 59, 428 N.E.2d 413 (1981). See also Kapper at 39 and Kuck

at ¶ 17-19. 

{¶ 9} A trial court’s decision granting or denying a petition for post-conviction relief 

should be upheld absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 

2006-Ohio-6679, 860 N.E.2d 77, ¶ 58. An abuse of discretion “most often involves an 

‘unreasonable’ decision that is not supported by a sound reasoning process.” State v. 

Mackey, 2018-Ohio-516, 106 N.E.3d 241, ¶ 8 (2d Dist.), citing Gondor at ¶ 58. 

{¶ 10} In this case, the allegation of the bailiff’s misconduct raised in Smith’s 

petition for post-conviction relief is based on nothing more than Smith’s broad, conclusory 

allegation that the bailiff had an improper conversation with the jurors about the jury 

instructions. Smith’s petition does not include any affidavit or other evidence supporting 

the allegation. The allegation is not even based on Smith’s own personal knowledge, as 

it is based on a double hearsay statement that Smith allegedly received from his trial 

counsel. Moreover, even if Smith had provided evidence of the bailiff’s alleged 

communication with the jurors, Smith’s petition does not set forth any operative facts 

establishing how he was prejudiced by the communication. 

{¶ 11} For the foregoing reasons, the trial court reasonably concluded that Smith’s 

petition for post-conviction relief failed to set forth sufficient operative facts demonstrating 

substantive grounds for relief. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

dismissing Smith’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. 

{¶ 12} Smith’s assignment of error is overruled. 

Conclusion 
-6- 

{¶ 13} Having overruled Smith’s sole assignment of error, the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

DONOVAN, J. and TUCKER, J., concur. 

Copies sent to: 

Mathias H. Heck, Jr. 

Andrew T. French 

Charles M. Blue 

Hon. Dale A. Crawford