Court Opinion

ID: 9882844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:20:51.814498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:03.804624
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Jones, 2023-Ohio-2936.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio,                                    :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,              :
                                                                       No. 22AP-626
v.                                                :                 (C.P.C. No. 13CR-2345)

Antonio M. Jones,                                 :           (ACCELERATED CALENDAR)

                 Defendant-Appellant.             :

                                            D E C I S I O N

                                     Rendered on August 22, 2023

                 On brief: [Janet A. Grubb, First Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney], and Seth L. Gilbert.

                 On brief: Antonio M. Jones, pro se.

                  APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

BOGGS, J.

        {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Antonio M. Jones (“Jones”), appeals from the
judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for leave to
file a motion for a new trial. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        {¶ 2} We have previously recounted the history of this case as follows:

                 By indictment filed May 2, 2013, plaintiff-appellee, State of
                 Ohio, charged Jones with one count of murder, in violation of
                 R.C. 2903.02, an unclassified felony, with an accompanying
                 firearm specification and repeat violent offender specification;
                 one count of felony murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.02, an
                 unclassified felony, with an accompanying firearm
                 specification and repeat violent offender specification; one
                 count of tampering with evidence, in violation of R.C. 2921.12,
                 a third-degree felony, with an accompanying firearm
No. 22AP-626                                                                     2

           specification; and one count of having a weapon while under
           disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13, a third-degree felony,
           with an accompanying firearm specification. All the charges
           related to the shooting death of James Edward Lane on
           April 20, 2013. Jones entered a plea of not guilty to all charges.

           Jones elected to waive his right to a jury trial for Count 4 of the
           indictment, having a weapon while under disability, and have
           a bench trial for that charge only. As to the other three charges
           contained in the indictment, a jury trial commenced June 23,
           2014. Officer Trevor Wolfe of the Columbus Division of Police
           testified that on the night of April 20, 2013, he responded to a
           dispatch of a shooting to 764 St. Clair Avenue, the location of
           the Happy Family Bar. When he arrived, he saw Lane with an
           obvious gunshot wound lying on the ground near a food truck
           parked at the bar’s patio, and Officer Wolfe called for a medic.
           Officer Wolfe secured the scene until the detectives arrived.

           Darren Cunningham, who worked security for the Happy
           Family Bar, was working the night of the shooting. Though he
           did not witness the actual shooting, Cunningham testified that
           an hour prior to the shooting, Jones came into the bar wearing
           a New York Yankees jacket, was “very amped up,” and did not
           want Cunningham to pat him down. (Tr. Vol. II, 54.) At that
           time, Cunningham said Jones did not have a weapon on him.
           Cunningham said that he kept a close eye on Jones while he
           was in the bar because Jones “kept running back and forth in
           and out of the door,” and he did that “about five or six times
           consecutively in maybe a ten-minute period.” (Tr. Vol. II, 55.)
           Cunningham said a man inside the bar kept telling Jones to
           “just calm down.” (Tr. Vol. II, 56.) Cunningham described
           Jones’ behavior while he was inside the bar as “very agitated.”
           (Tr. Vol. II, 56.) When Jones left the bar for the last time,
           Cunningham followed him outside, but he did not see Jones in
           the parking lot, so he assumed Jones had left for good.
           Approximately 20 minutes later, Cunningham saw a large
           crowd of people “stampede in the back door,” so Cunningham
           went outside and saw Lane lying outside on the ground by the
           patio’s back gate. (Tr. Vol. II, 56.)

           Vernice Hill, Jones’ cousin, testified that she knew Lane as a
           friend of her mother’s, and that she learned that Lane had been
           shot on April 21, 2013 because her mother told her. Hill said
           that approximately 24 hours after the shooting, Jones came to
           her house wearing a New York Yankees jacket, “sweating real
           bad,” and told her that he “shot somebody” at the Happy
           Family Bar. (Tr. Vol. II, 92.) Jones did not tell Hill who he had
No. 22AP-626                                                                     3

           shot, but he indicated he “had some problems with another
           man.” (Tr. Vol. II, 94.) Hill testified that Jones did not say
           anything to her about anyone pointing a gun at him or
           threatening his life before the shooting. Jones told Hill he
           planned to go to Georiga[sic] “to get away from him doing the
           shooting.” (Tr. Vol. II, 94.) While he was at her home, Jones
           placed a gun in a cabinet under Hill’s kitchen sink. He also took
           off his New York Yankees jacket and placed it on the back of a
           chair. Jones asked Hill if he could take a shower at her house,
           and Hill agreed. When Jones was in the shower, Hill went over
           to her mother’s house, and then she returned to her house
           where Jones was “starting to lay on the couch.” (Tr. Vol. II, 99.)
           Around 7:00 in the morning, Hill went back to her mother’s
           house where she called the police. Police came to Hill’s house
           and arrested Jones. Following Jones’ arrest, the police
           searched Hill’s home and recovered the gun and the jacket.

           Christopher Lewis, who was operating a food truck outside of
           the Happy Family Bar on April 20, 2013, testified that prior to
           the shooting, he saw Jones wearing a New York Yankees jacket,
           and he saw him get a gun out of the trunk of a car and place it
           in his pants. Lewis said Jones then went through the patio gate
           and into the bar. A few minutes later, Lane came to Lewis’ food
           truck and ordered some food. Lewis had just turned around to
           face Lane when he saw Jones with the gun and then heard
           “maybe five, six shots.” (Tr. Vol. II, 121.) Lewis testified he did
           not hear any arguments or threats just prior to the shooting.
           Lewis hid behind his barbeque smoker for a brief time, then
           came out and saw Lane on the ground saying “I’m hit, I’m hit.”
           (Tr. Vol. II, 124.) Lewis saw Jones run away from the parking
           lot after the shooting toward St. Clair Avenue. Lewis did not
           see anyone other than Jones with a gun and said no one else
           fired a gun that night. On cross-examination, Lewis said it was
           possible he was mistaken about how many shots he heard that
           night.

           Detective Lowell Titus of the Columbus Division of Police’s
           assault squad testified he responded to the Happy Family Bar
           the night of the shooting because homicide detectives initially
           thought Lane had stabilized and would survive his injuries.
           Detective Titus said he spoke with the owner of the Happy
           Family Bar in order to obtain the surveillance video of the
           inside of the bar, the patio, and the parking lot. Detective Titus
           testified he spoke with Hill, and based on the information Hill
           provided to him, Detective Titus filed a warrant for Jones’
           arrest. After reviewing the surveillance video from both inside
           and outside the bar, Detective Titus said he did not see anyone
No. 22AP-626                                                                   4

           pull a gun on Jones. The state played the surveillance video of
           the parking lot and patio area in court for the jury to see. The
           video showed Jones walking toward a group of three people,
           then Jones walking away from the group. The video further
           showed that Jones was facing away from the direction he
           ultimately fired when he pulled the gun out, and he then turned
           back around with the gun before firing. Detective Titus could
           not tell from viewing the video how many times Jones fired his
           gun.

           During Detective Titus’ testimony, the state played the audio
           recording of Detective Titus’ interview with Jones following his
           arrest. Jones said during the interview that he had problems
           with a man at the Happy Family Bar. Jones said that 25 or 30
           minutes before the incident occurred, the man pulled a gun on
           him. He said that he was outside when the man “jumped” him,
           so Jones reached for his gun and shot the man, though Jones
           said “the bullet wasn’t meant for the dude” and that he hit the
           wrong guy. (Tr. Vol. III, 182.) Jones said he only fired his gun
           one time. Jones told Detective Titus that the man he had been
           aiming for took off running after Jones fired his weapon. Jones
           said he did not know who any of the men were that he argued
           with at the bar. Jones said he stashed his gun in the bushes
           while he was inside the bar, then retrieved it from the bushes
           when he needed it.

           Kenneth Gerston, M.D., a deputy coroner with the Franklin
           County Coroner’s Office, testified that Lane died from a
           gunshot wound. The bullet entered Lane’s body through his
           right arm and traveled into the right side of his chest. Mark
           Hardy, a forensic scientist with the Columbus Division of
           Police, testified that he analyzed the spent projectile recovered
           from Lane’s body and that the spent projectile matched the gun
           police recovered from underneath Hill’s sink.

           Jones testified in his own defense. Jones stated he had often
           been on the receiving end of violence, saying he had been shot
           12 times, stabbed 3 times, and run over by a vehicle 1 time,
           resulting in many hospitalizations. Turning to the events of
           April 20, 2013, Jones testified that he was arguing with
           someone at the Happy Family Bar and that the man showed
           him a pistol. Because of his history of being a victim of
           violence, Jones said he did not want to leave after seeing the
           man’s gun because he was “scared.” (Tr. Vol. IV, 264.) Instead
           of leaving, Jones said he went outside and retrieved his own
           gun and “put it on [his] waistline.” (Tr. Vol. IV, 265.) When he
           encountered the man again, Jones said the man told him “I’m
No. 22AP-626                                                                                 5

              going to kill you.” (Tr. Vol. IV, 265.) Jones said he started to
              walk away but he saw the man reaching and he saw a “brown
              handle,” so Jones grabbed his gun and fired a shot because he
              has “been going through a lot in [his] lifetime and [he] learned
              about turning [his] back.” (Tr. Vol. IV, 265.) He said he “wasn’t
              trying to hurt nobody,” but that his “life was on the line,” so he
              did “what [he] had to do.” (Tr. Vol. IV, 265.) Jones denied ever
              telling Hill he planned to get out of Columbus after the
              shooting. On cross-examination, Jones said he “hit the wrong
              guy” when he fired his gun. (Tr. Vol. IV, 292.)

              Following deliberations, the jury returned guilty verdicts for
              both murder counts and the tampering with evidence count, as
              well as the accompanying firearm specifications. The parties
              stipulated to Jones’ prior convictions, and the trial court found
              Jones guilty of having a weapon while under disability and the
              repeat violent offender specifications. Following a sentencing
              hearing on September 12, 2014, the trial court merged Count 2,
              felony murder, into Count 1, murder, and sentenced Jones to
              an aggregate sentence of 33 years to life. The trial court
              journalized Jones’ convictions and sentence in a September 15,
              2014 judgment entry.

State v. Jones, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-796, 2015-Ohio-2357, ¶ 2-11 (“Jones I”). This court
affirmed Jones’s convictions on direct appeal. Id.
       {¶ 3} On July 28, 2015, Jones filed a motion for a new trial based on newly
discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33. After the state filed a memorandum in opposition,
pointing out that Jones’s motion was untimely and that he had not sought leave of court to
file it, Jones filed a motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial. On December 18, 2015,
the trial court denied the motion for leave, finding that the evidence that Jones had alleged
was newly discovered was, in fact, evidence that had been turned over to Jones’s counsel in
discovery. Jones appealed that decision, and this court affirmed. State v. Jones, 10th Dist.
No. 16AP-13, 2016-Ohio-5387 (“Jones II”).
       {¶ 4} On September 2, 2022 Jones filed another motion for leave to file a motion
for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33. In support of that
motion, Jones submitted the same evidence that was submitted with his 2015 motion as
well as informational summaries of two police interviews and an index page of
informational summaries.
No. 22AP-626                                                                             6

      {¶ 5} On October 4, 2022 the trial court denied Jones’s motion on the basis that
the evidence Jones points to was not “new evidence” for purposes of Crim.R. 33 and that
Jones “was not unavoidably prevented from discovering the reports at issue.” Jones had
argued that, in Jones II, this court had improperly imposed a time limit for filing motions
for a new trial, in contravention of State v. Bethel, 167 Ohio St.3d 362, 2022-Ohio-783.
However, the trial court noted that Jones’s 2015 motion was denied not because Jones
failed to file his motion within a reasonable amount of time but because he had not been
“unavoidably prevented from discovering the reports at issue.” Jones now appeals the trial
court’s denial of his September 2, 2022 motion.
II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

      {¶ 6} Jones raises the following assignments of error:

             (1) Appellant contends that the trial court has denied him
                 substantive due process and equal protection of the law
                 under the 1st, 6th, and 14th Amendments to the United
                 States Constitutions where it denied appellants application
                 to file a delayed new trial based upon newly discovered
                 evidence without first holding a[n] evidentiary hearing to
                 determine the unavoidably prevented aspect of the
                 statutory process.

             (2) Appellant contends that the trial court denied him
                 substantive due process and equal protection of law under
                 the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the United States
                 Constitutions when it failed to function in the manner in
                 which it was designed for, and resolve the controversies
                 between the parties, and as such denying Appellant
                 meaningful access to the courts and the right to petition the
                 government for regress of injuries, by committing acts of
                 constitutional avoidance.

III. ANALYSIS

      {¶ 7} Jones’s assignments of error both argue that the trial court erred in denying
his motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial. In Hatton, the Supreme Court of Ohio
noted that a defendant must show by clear and convincing evidence that they were
unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence they wish to rely upon for their
motion for a new trial. State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446, 2022-Ohio-3991. “The sole
question before the trial court when considering whether to grant leave is whether the
No. 22AP-626                                                                                 7

defendant has established by clear and convincing proof that he was unavoidably prevented
from discovering the evidence on which he seeks to base the motion for a new trial.” Id. at
¶ 30.
        {¶ 8} However, before we turn to his assignments of error, we note that much of
the evidence that Jones offers in support of his motion has already been rejected as “newly
discovered” by the trial court, and this court, in relation to his 2015 motion. The trial court
found that the evidence did not constitute newly discovered evidence and that he was not
unavoidably prevented from discovering any of those materials as they were already in the
possession of his counsel. This court, in considering Jones’s 2015 motion on appeal, noted
that:
              [t]hese reports were turned over to the defense in discovery.
              This is a fact even Jones does not deny. Since the defense had
              the reports, they could have “discovered and produced [them]
              at trial.” Crim.R. 33(A)(6). We acknowledge that the
              documents in question are marked “COUNSEL ONLY” and
              thus would not have been shared with Jones personally
              pursuant to Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(C). The fact
              that defense counsel was not permitted to actually show them
              to Jones does not mean that Jones, as a represented “party”
              was “unavoidably prevented from [] discover[ing]” them—they
              were in the defense attorney’s possession. State v. D.M., 10th
              Dist. No. 15AP-603, 2015-Ohio-4257, ¶ 11; State v. Wilson, 10th
              Dist. No. 02AP-1350, 2003-Ohio-5892, ¶ 12; Crim.R. 33(B).

State v. Jones, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-13, 2016-Ohio-5387, ¶ 9.

        {¶ 9} In his September 2022 motion, Jones presented the same arguments based
on the same “newly” discovered evidence that he presented in his 2015 motion. Those
arguments are barred by res judicata. “[A]ny issue that could have been raised on direct
appeal and was not is res judicata and not subject to review in subsequent proceedings.”
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, ¶ 16, citing State v. Hutton, 100 Ohio
St.3d 176, 2003-Ohio-5607, ¶ 37, and State v. D’Ambrosio, 73 Ohio St.3d 141, 143 (1995).
“Res judicata applies to bar raising piecemeal claims in successive motions filed after the
defendant is convicted.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) State v. Battin, 10th
Dist. No. 18AP-888, 2019-Ohio-2195, ¶ 13. “Thus, the doctrine serves to preclude a
defendant who has had his day in court from seeking a second on that same issue. In so
doing, res judicata promotes the principles of finality and judicial economy by preventing
No. 22AP-626                                                                              8

endless relitigation of an issue on which a defendant has already received a full and fair
opportunity to be heard.” Saxon at ¶ 18, citing State ex rel. Willys-Overland Co. v. Clark,
112 Ohio St. 263, 268 (1925). Here, Jones is attempting to relitigate his 2015 motion and
resurrect his efforts to seek a new trial but those arguments Jones offers are now barred
under res judicata.
       {¶ 10} While Jones’s September 2022 motion contains additional materials from his
2015 motion, we find that the additional materials are similarly barred by res judicata. As
stated above “[r]es judicata applies to bar raising piecemeal claims in successive motions
filed after the defendant is convicted.” Battin at ¶ 13. Jones offers no evidence that these
documents were discovered after his 2015 motion and therefore should have been offered
at that time. Having found that Jones’s arguments are barred by res judicata we overrule
both of his assignments of error.
IV. CONCLUSION
       {¶ 11} For the reasons stated above, we overrule both of Jones’s assignments of
error and affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
                                                                      Judgment affirmed.
                      BEATTY BLUNT, P.J., and MENTEL, J., concur.