Court Opinion

ID: 9404821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 13:08:27.262544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:17.560912
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Little, 2023-Ohio-2093.]

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

STATE OF OHIO                                             C.A. No.        22CA011896

         Appellee

         v.                                               APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                          ENTERED IN THE
TERRY LITTLE                                              COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                          COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO
         Appellant                                        CASE No.   07CR074162

                                   DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: June 26, 2023

         FLAGG LANZINGER, Judge

         {¶1}     Terry Little appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common

Pleas denying his petition for postconviction relief. This court affirms.

                                                     I.

         {¶1}     In a prior appeal, this Court set out the pertinent facts and procedural history of this

case as follows:

         In 2009, Little was convicted of aggravated murder and numerous additional
         offenses. His convictions stemmed from the death of Lewis Turner, who was shot
         and killed on July 30, 2007. The trial court imposed a total sentence of 30 years to
         life in prison. Little filed a direct appeal to this Court and his convictions were
         affirmed. State v. Little, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 10CA009758, 2011-Ohio-768 [(“Little
         I”)].

         While his appeal was pending, Little filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The
         trial court issued a journal entry with findings of fact and conclusions of law
         denying the petition.1

         1
          Mr. Little filed a petition to vacate or set aside judgment of conviction on July 29, 2010.
The trial court denied the petition on August 16, 2010, and Mr. Little did not appeal its decision.
                                                   2

        Several years later, on August 11, 2017, Little filed a pro se motion for leave to file
        a motion for new trial in addition to a pro se motion for new trial based on newly
        discovered evidence. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, the trial
        court denied the motion for new trial.

State v. Little, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 20CA011662, 2021-Ohio-1446, ¶ 2 (“Little III”), quoting State

v. Little, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 17CA011210, 2018-Ohio-5267, ¶ 2-4 (“Little II”). “Mr. Little

appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial, and this Court affirmed.” Little III at

¶ 2, citing Little II at ¶ 16.

        {¶2}     In 2020 Mr. Little filed a pro se “Motion to Correct Void Sentence; Failure to

Properly Impose Post-Release Control Pursuant to R.C. 2929.191” with the trial court, arguing

that the court had improperly imposed post-release control in this matter. The trial court denied

the motion in a journal entry filed on July 23, 2020. Little III at ¶ 3. Mr. Little appealed the trial

court’s denial of his motion to correct void sentence, and this Court affirmed, holding it as a

successive petition for postconviction relief. Id. at ¶ 7, 13.

        {¶3}     On June 14, 2022, Mr. Little filed what he captioned a “jurisdictional assessment

for post-conviction relief” and a separate successive postconviction petition with the trial court.

The trial court denied both motions in a journal entry filed on August 8, 2022. The court explained

that Mr. Little’s petition for postconviction relief was untimely and wholly lacking in merit.

        {¶4}     Mr. Little now appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his petition for

postconviction relief and raises three assignments of error for this Court's review. We have

consolidated his assignments of error because they require the same analysis.
                                                  3

                                                 II.

                                  ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

       TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION DENYING APPELLANT’S
       SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT
       HOLDING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WHEN NEW FACTS
       REVEALED TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF
       DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IN DUE PROCESS BY DEPRIVING HIM OF
       THE 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
       CONSTITUTION AND OHIO CONSTITUTION ARTICLE SECTION 16,
       WHEN MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES INTERFERED WITH FAIR TRIAL
       RIGHTS BY RECORDING AND UPLOADING HIS WITNESS
       TESTIMONY ONTO YOUTUBE WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

       TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT MADE AN
       UNREASONABLE DETERMINATION TO DENY APPELLANT’S
       SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF WHEN
       APPELLANT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE TRIAL COURT[’]S
       FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE MANDATED DIRECTIVES OF OHIO
       SUPERINTENDENCE RULE 12(A) AND (C) WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
       VIOLATING APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO A FAIR
       PUBLIC TRIAL

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

       TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED
       APPELLANT’S SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR POSTCONVICTION
       RELIEF AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WITH A PREJUDICIAL
       DECISION AFTER APPELLANT PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL FACTS
       TO SUPPORT STRUCTURAL ERROR ATTACHED TO HIS TRIAL
       WHEN THE MEDIA UNLAWFULLY RECORDED AND PUBLISHED
       APPELLANT’S   WITNESS   TESTIMONY    ONTO   YOUTUBE
       PROCEDURALLY VIOLATING LITTLE'S OHIO AND UNITED
       STATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

       {¶5}    In his three assignments of error, Mr. Little argues his due process rights were

violated when certain media outlets recorded portions of his trial without prior authorization. Mr.

Little asserts that the recordings of the trial proceedings were not authorized by the trial court and
                                                   4

therefore affected his right to a fair trial. Mr. Little argues that the trial court erred when it denied

his petition for postconviction relief. For the following reasons, this Court disagrees.

        {¶6}    A postconviction proceeding is a collateral civil attack on a criminal judgment, in

which the petitioner receives no more rights than those granted by the statute. State v. Calhoun, 86

Ohio St.3d 279, 281 (1999). R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a)(i) states that anyone “may file a petition in the

court that imposed sentence, stating the grounds for relief relied upon, and asking the court to

vacate or set aside the judgment or sentence or to grant other appropriate relief” if that person:

“has been convicted of a criminal offense * * * and * * * claims 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[.]”

        {¶7}    A vaguely titled motion may be treated as a petition for postconviction relief under

R.C. 2953.21(A)(1) when the motion was filed after a direct appeal, alleges a denial of

constitutional rights, seeks to render the judgment void or voidable, and requests that the judgment

and sentence be vacated. State v. Nichols, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29228, 2019-Ohio-3084, ¶ 8; State

v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 160 (1997). Mr. Little’s “jurisdictional assessment for post-

conviction relief” meets these requirements and may therefore be considered appropriately as a

petition for postconviction relief.

        {¶8}    This Court generally reviews a trial court’s decision denying a petition for

postconviction relief under an abuse of discretion standard. Nichols at ¶ 10. “Our standard of

review is de novo, however, when the trial court denies a petition solely on the basis of an issue of

law.” Id. “Whether a defendant’s post-conviction relief petition satisfied the procedural

requirements set forth in R.C. 2953.21 and R.C. 2953.23 is an issue of law.” State v. Childs, 9th
                                                   5

Dist. Summit No. 25448, 2011-Ohio-913, ¶ 9. Here, the trial court found Mr. Little’s petition was

untimely. Our standard of review in this matter is therefore de novo.

       {¶9}    Pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a), a petition filed under R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a),

“shall be filed no later than three hundred sixty-five days after the date on which the trial transcript

is filed in the court of appeals in the direct appeal of the judgment of conviction or adjudication[.]”

Here, there is no dispute that Mr. Little did not file a timely petition under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a).

The trial transcript was filed in Mr. Little’s direct appeal on August 6, 2010. He filed his petition

in this matter on June 14, 2022, more than ten years after the statutory deadline. Apart from being

untimely, Mr. Little’s petition is also successive, as the record reveals he filed two other petitions

for postconviction relief in 2017 and 2020.

       {¶10} “A trial court does not have jurisdiction to hear an untimely petition for

postconviction relief unless the requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A) are met.” State v. Dennard, 9th

Dist. Lorain No. 17CA011199, 2019-Ohio-2601, ¶ 6. As this Court has stated, the petitioner must

satisfy certain requirements:

       First, [he] must show that [he] was unavoidably prevented from discovering the
       facts [he] relies on or that, subsequent to the R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) deadline, the
       United States Supreme Court recognized a new federal or state right that applies
       retroactively to persons in [his] situation, and the petition asserts a claim based on
       that right. R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a). Second, [he] must show “by clear and convincing
       evidence that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would
       have found the petitioner guilty of the offense of which [he] was convicted * * *.”

State v. Burton, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28359, 2017-Ohio-7588, ¶ 8. When dealing with petitions

for postconviction relief, Ohio courts have stated that “[t]he phrase ‘unavoidably prevented’ means

that a defendant was unaware of those facts and was unable to learn of them through reasonable

diligence.” Id. at ¶ 9, quoting State v. McDonald, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-04-009, 2005-Ohio-798, ¶

19. See also State v. Short, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 82246, 2003-Ohio-3538, ¶ 9.
                                                 6

       {¶11} Mr. Little asserts that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts

upon which he relies for his claims for relief. Mr. Little argues he was unaware that the media

recorded a portion of his trial court proceedings until he recently learned some of those proceedings

appeared on YouTube. Mr. Little submitted documents to support his petition which evidenced

that Chronicle Telegram submitted media requests to the trial court on December 8, 2009. Both

media requests were granted by the trial court and entered onto the docket. “By definition,

something that is discernible in the record would not be something a defendant has been

unavoidably prevented from discovering.” State v. Burton, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28359, 2017-

Ohio-7588, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Beechler, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2016-CA-44, 2017-Ohio-1385, ¶ 28.

Because those documents were made part of the record at the time of Mr. Little's trial, Mr. Little

cannot demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the fact that his testimony

was recorded. Moreover, YouTube is a public social media platform that has existed since 2005.

Mr. Little could have discovered the posted video with reasonable diligence.

       {¶12} Mr. Little failed to demonstrate the applicability of an exception under R.C.

2953.23(A). Therefore, the trial court could not consider his untimely and successive petition. The

trial court properly denied his petition for postconviction relief on those grounds.

       {¶13} For the above reasons, Mr. Little's first, second, and third assignments of error are

overruled.

                                                III.

       {¶14} Mr. Little’s first, second, and third assignments of error are overruled. The

judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

                                                                                Judgment affirmed.
                                                 7

       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 Lorain, 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.

                                                     JILL FLAGG LANZINGER
                                                     FOR THE COURT

SUTTON, P. J.
HENSAL, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

TERRY LITTLE, pro se, Appellant.

J.D. TOMLINSON, Prosecuting Attorney, and LINDSEY C. POPROCKI, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for Appellee.