Court Opinion

ID: 9890799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 15:08:31.335576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:23.797106
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Brodie, 2023-Ohio-3744.]

STATE OF OHIO                     )                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                  )ss:                NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF MEDINA                  )

STATE OF OHIO                                         C.A. No.      23CA0005-M

        Appellee

        v.                                            APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                      ENTERED IN THE
RAEMAR M. BRODIE                                      COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                      COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
        Appellant                                     CASE No.   19CR0102

                                  DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: October 16, 2023

        CARR, Presiding Judge.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Raemar Brodie, appeals the judgment of the Medina County Court of

Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

                                                 I.

        {¶2}     On January 24, 2019, the Medina County Grand Jury indicted Brodie on one count

of possession of cocaine, a felony of the fifth degree. Several months later, on March 6, 2020, the

grand jury issued a supplemental indictment charging Brodie with an additional count of

possession of cocaine, a felony of the first degree. The matter proceeded to a bench trial where

Brodie was found guilty on both counts. The trial court sentenced Brodie to an aggregate prison

term of 11 to 16 and a half years.

        {¶3}     Brodie filed a direct appeal.   This Court rejected Brodie’s challenges to the

sufficiency and weight of the evidence and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. State v. Brodie,

9th Dist. Medina No. 21CA0048-M, 2022-Ohio-1794, ¶ 17-18.
                                                  2

       {¶4}    On August 15, 2022, Brodie filed a petition for post-conviction relief wherein he

set forth a number of ineffective assistance claims. The trial court dismissed the petition without

a hearing on the basis that Brodie had failed to identify substantive ground for relief because all of

his claims were barred by res judicata.1

       {¶5}    Brodie filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s journal entry dismissing his

petition. Now before this Court, Brodie raises one assignment of error.

                                                  II.

                                   ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, WHEN IT APPLIED
       RES JUDICATA TO MR. BRODIE’S TIMELY POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
       PETITION[], DISMISSING THE [PETITION] WITHOUT A HEARING.

       {¶6}    In his sole assignment of error, Brodie contends that the trial court erred by

dismissing his petition without a hearing on the basis that all of his claims were barred under the

doctrine of res judicata. This Court disagrees.

                                            Background

       {¶7}    In support of his petition for post-conviction relief, Brodie argued that trial counsel

rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise a number of arguments before the trial court.

Specifically, Brodie argued that trial counsel should have challenged the constitutionality of

Ohio’s post-release control statute on the basis that it violates the basic right to liberty as well as

the right against self-incrimination. Brodie further argued that trial counsel should have raised

       1
         In its December 12, 2022 journal entry dismissing Brodie’s petition, the trial court noted
that Brodie had filed a motion to reopen his direct appeal that remained pending in this Court. On
January 20, 2023, this Court issued a journal entry granting Brodie’s motion to reopen. In the
reopened appeal, the State conceded error and this Court reversed and remanded the trial court’s
judgment solely for resentencing.
                                                   3

challenges on the basis that the statute under which he was charged was unconstitutionally vague

and, further, that his sentence was contrary to law.

        {¶8}    In its December 12, 2022 journal entry, the trial court set forth findings of fact and

conclusions of law in support of its order dismissing the petition. The trial court noted that Brodie

was not represented by the same attorney at trial and on appeal. The trial court found that “[e]ach

of the claims set forth by Brodie in the petition are barred by res judicata because they can be

meaningfully reviewed without resorting to evidence outside the record.”

                                              Discussion

        {¶9}    On appeal, Brodie contends that the claims that he raised in support of his petition

were not confined to the trial court record. To that end, Brodie suggests that the trial court failed

to set forth an adequate explanation as to why res judicata applied to his claims. Brodie further

contends that because the State never filed a response to his petition, the trial court overreached

by sua sponte dismissing the claim on the basis of res judicata.

        {¶10} R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a) provides that a petition for postconviction relief must be

filed within 365 days of the date on which the transcript is filed in a direct appeal. In this case, the

transcripts for the direct appeal were filed on September 2, 2021. Brodie filed his petition for post-

conviction relief within the 365-day window on August 15, 2022.

        {¶11} Even if a petition is timely filed, the petitioner “is not automatically entitled to a

hearing.” State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 282 (1999). When considering a timely-field

petition, the trial court must decide if a hearing is warranted by determining whether there are

substantive grounds for relief with reference to “the petition, the supporting affidavits, and the

documentary evidence, all the files and records pertaining to the proceedings against the

petitioner[.]” R.C. 2953.21(D). A trial court may dismiss a petition for post-conviction relief that
                                                   4

“does not allege facts which, if proved, would entitle the prisoner to relief[ ]” or a petition whose

allegations are negated by the supporting evidence and the record. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d

175 (1967), paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. See also Calhoun at paragraph two of the

syllabus; State v. Lester, 41 Ohio St.2d 51 (1975), paragraph two of the syllabus.

       {¶12} “One basis for summary dismissal of a petition is the doctrine of res judicata. If

the trial court finds, on the facts of a case, that a petitioner’s claim was fully litigated at trial or

upon appeal, or that the claim could have been fully litigated in an appeal, the court can summarily

dismiss the claim as barred by res judicata.” Lester at 55. “[A] court reviewing a postconviction-

relief petition generally may not decide a claim that could have been presented at trial and raised

on direct appeal.” State v. Blanton, 171 Ohio St.3d 19, 2022-Ohio-3985, ¶ 2, citing Perry at 180.

Significantly, however, the Ohio Supreme Court has noted that “[t]here’s a twist when it comes to

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Blanton at ¶ 2.

       We have held that res judicata does not bar a postconviction ineffective-assistance-
       of-counsel claim when either (1) the petitioner had the same attorney at trial and on
       appeal or (2) he must rely on evidence outside the trial record to establish his claim
       for relief. The converse is that when the petitioner had a new attorney on appeal
       and the claim could have been litigated based on the trial record, res judicata applies
       and the postconviction claim is barred.

(Internal citations omitted.) Id.

       {¶13} Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not err in dismissing

Brodie’s petition on the basis that his ineffective assistance claims were barred under the doctrine

of res judicata. The trial court addressed each of Brodie’s ineffective assistance claims in its

journal entry dismissing his petition. Brodie’s claims were predicated on the notion that trial

counsel should have raised constitutional challenges to a number of statutory provisions as well as

Brodie’s underlying sentence. All of these issues could have been raised either at trial or on direct

appeal. Brodie has not identified any evidence outside the record in support of his claims. See
                                                  5

Blanton at ¶ 2. Furthermore, this case does not involve a scenario where Brodie was represented

by the same attorney both at trial and on appeal. Id. It follows that Brodie’s challenge to the trial

court’s dismissal of his petition is without merit.

       {¶14} Brodie’s assignment of error is overruled.

                                                 III.

       {¶15} Brodie’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Medina County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

                                                                                Judgment affirmed.

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of

this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

       Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

       Costs taxed to Appellant.

                                                        DONNA J. CARR
                                                        FOR THE COURT
                                       6

STEVENSON, J.
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

RAEMAR M. BRODIE, pro se, Appellant.

S. FORREST THOMPSON, Prosecuting Attorney, and VINCENT V. VIGLUICCI, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.