[Cite as State v. Matson, 2017-Ohio-7137.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsTIMOTHY R. MATSON 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P. J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

Case No. CT2017-0026 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. CR2016-0053 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 7, 2017 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

D. MICHAEL HADDOX TIMOTHY R. MATSON 

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY PRO SE 

GERALD V. ANDERSON II NOBLE CORR. INSTITUTION 

ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 15708 McConnelsville Road 

27 North Fifth Street, PO Box 189 Caldwell, Ohio 43724 

Zanesville, Ohio 43702-0189 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0026 2

Wise, John, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Timothy R. Matson appeals the March 14, 2017, decision of the 

Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas denying his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. 

{¶2} Appellee is the State of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶3} On February 3, 2016, Appellant, Timothy R. Matson, was indicted on Count 

One: Possession of Drugs (Heroin) with a Major Drug Offender specification and a Firearm 

specification, a felony of the first degree; Count Two: Possession of Drugs 

(Methamphetamine) with a firearm specification, a felony of the second degree; Count 

Three: Possession of Drugs (Marijuana) with a firearm specification, a felony of the fifth 

degree; Count Four: Having a Weapon While Under Disability, a felony of the third degree. 

{¶4} On August 23, 2016, counsel for Appellant, Attorney John Graceffo, filed a 

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. In his motion, counsel stated that he was informed 

by Appellant on August 17, 2016, that he had new counsel. 

{¶5} On August 25, 2016, Appellant filed a motion to suppress. 

{¶6} By Judgment Entry filed August 25, 2016, the trial court denied 

counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

{¶7} On August 26, 2016, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charges 

contained in the Indictment. 

{¶8} By Judgment Entry filed August 31, 2016, the trial court sentenced 

Appellant as follows: 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0026 3

Count One: eleven (11) years and a mandatory fine of 

$10,000.00 and a mandatory one-year sentence on the Firearm 

Specification; 

Count Two: a mandatory two (2) year sentence with a mandatory 

fine of $7,500.00 and a mandatory one-year sentence on the Firearm 

Specification. 

Count Three: a stated prison term of twelve (12) months and a 

mandatory one-year sentence on the Firearm Specification. 

Count Four: a stated prison term of twenty-four (24) months. 

{¶9} The trial court ordered the sentences for Counts One and Two to be 

served consecutively and the sentences for Counts Three and Four to be served 

concurrently with each other and with Counts One and Two. The firearm specifications 

were to run consecutively, as required by law. Appellant was given an aggregate 

sentence of fourteen (14) years. 

{¶10} Appellant did not file a direct appeal from his sentence and/or 

conviction. 

{¶11} On March 3, 2017, Appellant filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief 

arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to file a timely motion 

to suppress. 

{¶12} On March 8, 2017, the State filed its Opposition to Defendant’s Petition 

for Post-Conviction Relief. 

{¶13} On March 14, 2017, the trial court denied Appellant’s Petition for PostConviction Relief. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0026 4

{¶14} Appellant now appeals, setting forth the following assignments of error:

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶15} “I. DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS DEFICIENT IN FAILING TO FILE A TIMELY 

MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE WHEN COUNSEL LEARNED THAT 

DETECTIVE WILHITE'S SUBMITTED A [sic] AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF A SEARCH 

WARRANT THAT WAS RIDDLED WITH INTENTIONAL OR RECKLESS FALSEHOODS 

WHICH DEFICIENT REPRESENTATION PREJUDICED APPELLANT. 

{¶16} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO 

GRANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON THE GROUNDS OF RES JUDICATA.” 

I., II, 

{¶17} In his Two Assignments of Error, Appellant argues that he was denied the 

effective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court should have granted him an 

evidentiary hearing on said claim. We disagree. 

{¶18} Upon review, we find Appellant's arguments are barred under the doctrine 

of res judicata. As stated by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 

175 (1967), paragraphs eight and nine of the syllabus, the doctrine of res judicata is 

applicable to petitions for post-conviction relief. The Perry court explained the doctrine at 

180–181 as follows: 

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

a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and 

litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from that judgment, any defense 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0026 5

or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised 

by the defendant at trial, which resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on 

an appeal from that judgment. 

{¶19} In reviewing Appellant's petition for post-conviction relief, we find the 

arguments therein could have been raised on direct appeal. We further find that Appellant’s 

arguments do not raise any issues that are dependent upon evidence outside the trial court 

record. 

{¶20} Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's petition. 

{¶21} Appellant’s Assignments of Error I and II are denied. 

{¶22} For the foregoing reason, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Muskingum County, Ohio, is affirmed. 

By: Wise, John, J. 

Delaney, P. J., and 

Baldwin, J., concur. 

JWW/d 0731