Court Opinion

ID: 9371595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 17:08:14.820527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:28.611658
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-447.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                   :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,             :
                                                              No. 111472
                 v.                              :

DARRYL SMITH,                                    :

                 Defendant-Appellant.            :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 16, 2023

             Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                     Case Nos. CR-17-620144-A and CR-18-630341-A

                                           Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Gregory Ochocki, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee.

                 Darryl Smith, pro se.

LISA B. FORBES, J.:

                   Darryl Smith (“Smith”), acting pro se, appeals from the trial court’s

denial of his “post conviction petition to vacate conviction and sentence

(R.C. 2953.21) and i.e. motion to vacate guilty pleas (criminal rule 32.1).” After
reviewing the facts of the case and pertinent law, we affirm the lower court’s

judgment.

               On March 29, 2018, Smith pled guilty to various felonies in multiple

cases, including attempted aggravated arson in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-620144-

A. On December 3, 2018, Smith pled guilty to failure to comply in Cuyahoga C.P.

No. CR-18-630341-A. The court found Smith to be in violation of his community-

control sanctions in CR-17-620144-A because of his guilty plea in CR-18-630341-A.

               On April 16, 2020, this court affirmed Smith’s convictions and

subsequent prison sentence in the two aforementioned cases. State v. Smith, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108121, 2020-Ohio-1492 (“Smith I”). In Smith I, Smith raised

six assignments of error, including, pertinent to the appeal in the case at hand, a

challenge to the trial court’s acceptance of his guilty pleas in CR-18-630341-A and a

challenge to the finding that he violated his community-control sanctions in CR-17-

620144-A. This court found that the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 in

accepting Smith’s guilty plea, and “Smith failed to show any prejudice resulting from

allegations that his rights were violated.” Id. at ¶ 20. Additionally, this court found

that “Smith suffered no due process deprivation regarding his community control

sanctions violation * * *.” Id. at ¶ 11.

               On June 7, 2021, Smith filed a “post conviction petition to vacate

conviction and sentence (R.C. 2953.21) and i.e. motion to vacate guilty pleas

(criminal rule 32.1)” in both cases noted above. The trial court summarily denied
these motions on June 14, 2021, and it is from these orders that Smith appeals,

raising the following assignments of error:

      I.     The trial court’s extraction of guilty pleas did not comply with
             Criminal Rule 11-C and did not properly advise appellant of the
             correct sentencing penalties, and the plea was obtained by use of
             a phony promised plea agreement, all of which is contrary to
             controlling authorities of law and the Sixth and Fourteenth
             Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

      II.    The state, the prosecutors, attorney and the trial court
             intentionally concealed, hid, and suppressed actual innocence
             crime videos and actual innocence exculpatory police evidence
             and eyewitnesses which is contrary to the Sixth and Fourteenth
             Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, Criminal Rule 16 and
             R.C. 2921.12.

      III.   Probation revocation, violations of manditory [sic] procedure
             rights[.] The trial court totally denied all of defendants
             manditory [sic] procedure in arbitrary revocation of probation
             without any hearing and without appointed counsel and;
             falsified court records to conceal the procedure violations
             misconduct, all of which violates Criminal Rule 32.3, controlling
             authorities of law and due process rights provided in the Fifth,
             Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

I.   Law and Analysis

      A. Pro Se Litigants

              The Ohio Supreme Court has “repeatedly declared that ‘pro se

litigants * * * must follow the same procedures as litigants represented by counsel.’

State ex rel. Gessner v. Vore, 123 Ohio St.3d 96, 2009-Ohio-4150, 914 N.E.2d 376,

¶ 5.” State ex rel. Neil v. French, 153 Ohio St.3d 271, 2018-Ohio-2692, 104 N.E.3d

764, ¶ 10. Furthermore, Ohio courts have consistently held that pro se litigants “are

presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedure and * * * they are held

to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel.” Sabouri v. Ohio
Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 145 Ohio App.3d 651, 654, 763 N.E.2d 1238 (10th

Dist.2001).

      B. Standard of Review — Postconviction-Relief Petition

               Appellate courts review a trial court’s ruling on a petition for

postconviction relief under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Watts, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 108296, 2019-Ohio-4356, ¶ 11. See also State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio

St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, 860 N.E.2d 77, ¶ 58 (holding that “a trial court’s

decision granting or denying a postconviction petition filed pursuant to R.C. 2953.21

should be upheld absent an abuse of discretion; a reviewing court should not

overrule the trial court’s finding on a petition for postconviction relief that is

supported by competent and credible evidence”).

      C. Postconviction Relief and Res Judicata

               A postconviction proceeding is not an appeal of a criminal conviction.

Rather, it is a collateral civil attack on the judgment. State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d

399, 639 N.E.2d 67 (1994). R.C. 2953.21 allows defendants who have been convicted

of criminal offenses to file petitions for postconviction relief, “asking the court to

vacate or set aside the judgment or sentence * * *.” Petitioners must state “all

grounds for relief” upon which they rely, and they waive all other grounds not so

stated. R.C. 2953.21(A)(4).

               However, petitions for postconviction relief may be denied under the

doctrine of res judicata. “A petition for postconviction relief is not the proper vehicle

to raise issues that were or could have been determined on direct appeal.” State v.
Hale, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103654, 2016-Ohio-5837, ¶ 8, citing State v. Perry, 10

Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967). See also State v. Montgomery, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 99452, 2013-Ohio-4193, ¶ 42 (“The usual formulation of res judicata

in postconviction proceedings is that it bars the assertion of claims against a valid,

final judgment of conviction that have been raised or could have been raised on

appeal.”).

               Postconviction-relief petitions may also be denied “when the record,

including the dialogue conducted between the court and the defendant pursuant to

Crim.R. 11, indicates that the petitioner is not entitled to relief and that the petitioner

failed to submit evidentiary documents containing sufficient operative facts to

demonstrate that the guilty plea was coerced or induced by false promises.” State v.

Kapper, 5 Ohio St.3d 23, 38, 448 N.E.2d 823 (1983).                    In other words,

postconviction-relief petitions are properly denied when “the petition, the

supporting affidavits, the documentary evidence, the files, and the records do not

demonstrate that petitioner set forth sufficient operative facts to establish

substantive grounds for relief.” State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 291, 714 N.E.2d

905 (1999).

       D. Analysis

               In Smith’s first assignment of error, he argues that the trial court did

not comply with Crim.R. 11 when it accepted his guilty plea. This argument was

reviewed and rejected on the merits by this court in Smith I.

       The court paid special attention to Smith’s hearing impairment by
       having the attorneys speak louder and stand closer to Smith and
      repeating things so Smith understood them. The court also reminded
      Smith that his guilty plea was a violation of his community control
      sanctions. We find no * * * violations of Smith’s Crim.R. 11 rights.
      Furthermore, Smith failed to show any prejudice resulting from
      allegations that his rights were violated.

Smith I at ¶ 20.

               Because Smith did not raise any issues in his postconviction-relief

petition that had not been addressed in Smith I, this argument is barred by the

doctrine of res judicata, and Smith’s first assignment of error is overruled.

               In Smith’s third assignment of error, he argues that the trial court

“totally denied” his rights by revoking his community-control sanctions, which he

refers to as “probation revocation.” This argument was also reviewed and rejected

on the merits by this court in Smith I.

      Upon review of the record, we find that the court held community
      control sanctions violation hearings on December 3, 2018 and
      January 7, 2019; Smith was present and represented by counsel at
      these hearings; Smith was properly notified of the charges against him;
      Smith acknowledged on the record that his guilty plea to failure to
      comply necessarily resulted in a violation of his community control
      sanctions; and the court made a finding that Smith violated his
      community control sanctions. Accordingly, we find that Smith suffered
      no due process deprivation regarding his community control sanctions
      violation, and his first assigned error is overruled.

Smith I at ¶ 11.

               Because Smith did not raise any issues in his postconviction-relief

petition that had not been addressed in Smith I, this argument is barred by the

doctrine of res judicata, and Smith’s third assignment of error is overruled.

               In Smith’s second assignment of error, he argues that “since 2016-

2017 and ongoing prosecutors and police possess crime videos that exonerate Smith
and a wealth of evidence texts, emails and eyewitness statements that prove clear

innocence all of which overcome procedure defaults.”

              In his petition for postconviction relief and his appellate brief, Smith

makes the same arguments he made in a motion for a new trial that he filed on

February 5, 2019.        Smith’s motion for new trial was “based on new

evidence/exculpatory evidence * * *.” Specifically, Smith claimed that he “recently

learned about the arson video contents [that] would acquit him from informants (i.e.

police and court personel [sic]) who seen the video and Smith is not on it

whatsoever.” The trial court denied this motion on February 26, 2019. Smith filed

an untimely appeal from this journal entry on May 16, 2019, which this court

dismissed. State v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108572, motion No. 528500 (May

29, 2019).

              Additionally, the documents attached to Smith’s postconviction-relief

petition, which he argues are exculpatory as to his arson conviction, concern a fire

that occurred on September 5, 2016. It is undisputed that the fire, which formed the

basis of the attempted aggravated arson charge to which Smith pled guilty in CR-17-

620144-A occurred on April 14, 2017. Upon review, we find that Smith failed to set

forth sufficient operative facts showing that he is entitled to postconviction relief,

because the evidence he submitted is irrelevant to the issues raised in the case at

hand. See State v. Lawson, 103 Ohio App.3d 307, 315, 659 N.E.2d 362 (12th Dist.

1995), quoting State v. Coleman, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-900811, 1993 Ohio App.

LEXIS 1485, 2 (Mar. 17, 1993) (‘“Evidence presented outside the record must meet
some threshold standard of cogency; otherwise it would be too easy to defeat the

holding of Perry by simply attaching as exhibits evidence which is only marginally

significant and does not advance the petitioner’s claim beyond mere hypothesis and

a desire for further discovery.”’).

               Accordingly, Smith’s allegations concerning exculpatory evidence are

barred by the doctrine of res judicata because they were disposed of by the trial court

and reviewed and rejected on appeal in Smith I. Additionally, Smith failed to

support his petition with substantive and relevant evidence under R.C. 2953.21.

Smith’s second 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 be sent to said 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

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR