Court Opinion

ID: 9964026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 19:10:11.531995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:08.031600
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Hamm, 2024-Ohio-1621.]

                                      COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
                                  FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                     JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO                                :       Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
                                             :       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
                        Plaintiff-Appellee   :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
                                             :
-vs-                                         :
                                             :       Case No. 2023CA00030
CHRISTOPHER HAMM                             :
                                             :
                    Defendant-Appellant      :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                         Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of
                                                 Common Pleas, Case No. 2021 CR 0059

JUDGMENT:                                        Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                          April 26, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                           For Defendant-Appellant

R. KYLE WITT                                     CHRISTOPHER J. HAMM, PRO SE
Fairfield County Prosecutor                      Pickaway Correctional Institute
BY: CHRISTOPHER A. REAMER                        11781 St. Route 72
239 West Main Street, Ste. 101                   Orient, OH 43146
Lancaster, OH 43130
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                 2

Gwin, J.

        {¶1}   Defendant-appellant Christopher Hamm [“Hamm”] appeals from the July

24, 2023 Judgment Entry of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his

Petition to Vacate or Set Aside Judgment.

                                   Facts and Procedural History

        {¶2}   On February 25, 2021, Hamm was Indicted by the Fairfield County Grand

Jury for seven felony offenses stemming from an altercation that resulted in the stabbing

and death of K.S.J., to wit:

               Aggravated Murder, an unclassified felony with a maximum

        sentence of imprisonment for life without parole;

               Murder, an unclassified felony with a maximum sentence of

        imprisonment for an indefinite term of 15 years to life;

               Aggravated Burglary, a felony of the first degree with a maximum

        sentence of imprisonment for an indefinite term of 11 to 16.5 years;

               Aggravated Robbery, a felony of the first degree with a maximum

        sentence of imprisonment for an indefinite term of 11 to 16.5 years;

               Tampering with Evidence, a felony of the third degree with a

        maximum sentence of imprisonment for 36 months;

               Trafficking in marijuana, a felony of the third degree with a maximum

        sentence of imprisonment for 36 months; and

               Aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of the fifth degree with a

        maximum sentence of imprisonment for 12 months.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                    3

       {¶3}    A jury trial was scheduled for May 5, 2021. Upon motion of the state, based

on ongoing plea negotiations and the need for further investigative test results from The

Ohio Attorney General's Bureau of Criminal Investigation ("BCI") and the County Coroner,

this originally scheduled jury trial date was continued to July 27, 2021. The jury trial was

again continued on motion of the state based on ongoing plea negotiations and the need

for DNA test results from BCI. State’s Motion to Continue Jury Trial, filed July 8, 2021.

[Docket Entry No. 64]. The trial judge, upon consideration of scheduling memorandums

filed by the parties, reset the jury trial to commence on October 5, 2021. Scheduling

Notice of Jury Trial, filed July 30, 2021 [Docket No. 68]. See, also, Defendant’s Scheduling

Memorandum, filed July 27, 2021 [Docket Entry No. 66]; State's September Trial

Conflicts, filed July 27, 2021 [Docket Entry No. 67].

       {¶4}    The state filed responses to Hamm’s discovery requests on April 9, 2021,

May 14, 2021, June 3, 2021; and September 13, 2021.

       {¶5}    Hamm filed a Motion to Compel on August 26, 2021 that the trial court set

for hearing on September 20, 2021. During the hearing, the state presented testimony

and admitted twenty exhibits1. See, Judgment Entry Overruling Motion to Compel, filed

Sept. 21, 2021 at 1. The trial court found that the state had made a good faith effort to

locate, obtain and preserve any video evidence relative to the allegations contained in the

Indictment. Id.

       {¶6}    On September 24, 2021 the trial judge granted the state’s motion to amend

Count 1 [Aggravated Murder] and Count 4 [Aggravated Robbery] of the Indictment.

       1 A transcript of the hearing was not filed with the record in this Court.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                      4

       {¶7}    On September 27, 2021, Hamm filed a Motion in Limine concerning

testimony relating to the Ohio Narcotics Intelligence Center. Hamm also filed a Motion in

Limine to preclude Hamm’s prior criminal history and periods of incarceration; alleged

domestic violence incidents and Hamm’s alleged drug activity from being introduced

during trial. Hamm also sought to exclude evidence of jail telephone calls between himself

and family members for failure of the state to comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 16.

       {¶8}    On September 28, 2021, Hamm’s counsel filed requests for jury instructions

on self-defense. The state filed requests for jury instructions on Intoxication, Flight, Owner

(for purposes of Theft); Motive and Trespass.

       {¶9}    Hamm entered into a negotiated plea agreement with the state at a hearing

on September 29, 2021, almost a full week prior to the jury trial scheduled for October 5,

20212. [Docket Entry No. 125]. Hamm’s written Waiver Upon Plea of Guilty/No Contest

was filed on October 4, 2021.

       {¶10} On October 20, 2021, Hamm appeared for sentencing and was sentenced

to a jointly recommended sentence of fifteen years to life on the charge of Murder and a

36-month concurrent term on the Tampering with Evidence charge. The remaining counts

were dismissed3.

       {¶11} In April 2022, Hamm filed a pro se motion for appeal and requested the trial

court appoint him counsel (Fairfield App. No. 2022 CA 00014). On May 11, 2022, Hamm

sent a handwritten document to the trial court requesting a new court appointed counsel

       2 A transcript of the hearing was not filed with the record in this Court.
       3 A transcript of the hearing was not filed with the record in this Court.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                   5

and essentially arguing that his original court appointed counsel had pressured him into

making a plea agreement. The trial court appointed counsel for the purposes of an appeal.

       {¶12} In June 2022 Hamm's appellate counsel in Fairfield App. No. 2022 CA

00014 filed a docketing statement on Hamm's behalf identifying the sole issue for review

as whether Hamm's guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. In

addition, counsel filed a motion for leave to appeal given the untimeliness of the appeal.

       {¶13} On June 29, 2022, this Court denied Hamm's motion for leave to appeal in

Fairfield App. No 2022 CA 00014 finding Hamm did not set forth sufficient reasons

justifying the delay in filing his Notice of Appeal. Hamm moved for reconsideration of that

denial for leave to appeal and on September 7, 2022, this Court denied his motion to

reconsider.

       {¶14} In October 2022, Hamm filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief under

R.C. 2953.21 and additionally requested court appointed counsel. The trial court

appointed counsel for purposes of post-conviction relief and allowed appointed counsel

to file an amended postconviction petition on February 1, 2023.

       {¶15}   By Judgment Entry filed July 25, 2023 the trial judge denied Hamm’s

petition without a hearing.

       {¶16} On August 2, 2023, post-conviction appointed counsel for Hamm filed a

notice of appeal regarding the trial court's dismissal of Hamm's post-conviction petition.

Contemporaneously, Hamm made a request for court appointed counsel for purposes of

this appeal. On August 8, 2023, the trial court overruled the request for court appointed

counsel for purposes of this appeal from post-conviction relief proceedings. This Court
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                      6

ultimately allowed the withdrawal of counsel for Hamm after Hamm was given notice in

accordance with Local R. 3 that he would be required to represent himself.

       {¶17} Hamm was granted an extension until December 3, 2023, to file his pro se

brief. On December 5, 2023, Hamm filed his brief without an instanter request; however,

he failed to serve Appellee.

       {¶18} On January 3, 2024, this Court, recognizing Hamm's failure to serve

Appellee, ordered him to effect service upon Appellee by January 22, 2024, or risk having

the appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. On January 22, 2024, withdrawn counsel

filed a limited notice of appearance and provided notice of service of Hamm's pro se brief

upon Appellee.

                                         Pro se Appellants

       {¶19} We understand that Hamm has filed this appeal pro se. Nevertheless, “like

members of the bar, pro se litigants are required to comply with rules of practice and

procedure.” Hardy v. Belmont Correctional Inst., 10th Dist. No. 06AP-116, 2006-Ohio-

3316, ¶ 9. See, also, State v. Hall, 11th Dist. No. 2007-T-0022, 2008-Ohio-2128, ¶11. We

also understand that “an appellate court will ordinarily indulge a pro se litigant where there

is some semblance of compliance with the appellate rules.” State v. Richard, 8th Dist.

No. 86154, 2005-Ohio-6494, ¶4 (internal quotation omitted).

       {¶20} We note that the underlying action was a criminal case. Hamm requested

appointed counsel; however, a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is a civil matter. An

indigent criminal defendant has neither a federal nor a state constitutional right to be

represented by an attorney in a post-conviction relief proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley,

481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539(1987); State v. Crowder, 60 Ohio St.3d
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                                    7

151, 573 N.E.2d 652(1991).4 However, when a person is convicted of a criminal offense

and claims that his or her constitutional rights were violated, the person, pursuant to R.C.

2953.21, may petition the court that imposed the sentence and request that the court

vacate or set aside the judgment or sentence. Crowder, 60 Ohio St.3d at 153, 573 N.E.2d

652. Therefore, a petition for post-conviction relief is a means to reach constitutional

issues that would otherwise be impossible to reach because the evidence supporting

those issues is not contained in the record of the petitioner's criminal conviction. State v.

Murphy, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 00AP-233, 2000 WL 1877526(Dec. 26, 2000); Accord,

State v. Zich, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-15-1263, 2017-Ohio-414, ¶9.

        {¶21} Accordingly, this is not a typical civil case for monetary damages in which

an appellant has chosen to represent himself. Under these circumstances, an indigent

appellant is given no other choice then to file an appeal pro se. It seems unduly harsh to

hold that a litigant who wishes to challenge the trial court’s ruling, but who is lacking the

financial resources to hire an attorney to file an appeal from the denial of his or her Petition

for Post-Conviction Relief, is bound by the same rules and procedures as those litigants

who can afford to retain counsel.

        {¶22} In the case at bar, there is at least some semblance of compliance with the

appellate rules. “[I]t is a fundamental tenet of judicial review in Ohio that courts should

decide cases on the merits.” DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 189,192 431

N.E.2d 644(1982), citing Cobb v. Cobb, 62 Ohio St.2d 124, 403 N.E.2d 991(1980). We

        4 However, in the State of   Ohio, an indigent petitioner has a limited state-created right to the
appointment of counsel to conduct a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that
will support a PCR petition. In Crowder, supra, the Ohio State Supreme Court determined R.C. 120.16(A)(1)
and (D) requires the appointment of counsel if two conditions are met. First, the trial court must determine
whether the petitioner’s allegations warrant an evidentiary hearing. Second, the public defender must
assess whether petitioner’s allegations have arguable merit. Crowder, supra, at paragraphs one and two
of the syllabus.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                   8

can sufficiently discern the facts supporting Hamm’s argument from the record in this

matter. Therefore, in the interests of justice, we shall attempt to consider Hamm’s

argument.

                                     Failure to file transcript

       {¶23} However, we first must address Hamm’s failure to present a transcript to

this Court of his plea hearing and his sentencing hearing.

       {¶24} “The duty to provide a transcript for appellate review falls upon the

appellant. This is necessarily so because an appellant bears the burden of showing error

by reference to matters in the record.” Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d

197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980), citing State v. Skaggs, 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 163, 372

N.E.2d 1335(1978). This requirement is set forth in App.R. 9(B), which provides, in

pertinent part, as follows: “*** the appellant shall in writing order from the reporter a

complete transcript or a transcript of such parts of the proceedings not already on file as

he deems necessary for inclusion in the record * * *.” Further, “[w]hen portions of the

transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the

reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court

has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.”

Knapp 61 Ohio St.2d at 199, 400 N.E.2d 384. If a partial record does not conclusively

support the trial court's decision, it is presumed that the omitted portion provides the

necessary support. Knapp, 61 Ohio St.2d at 199, 400 N.E.2d 384.

       {¶25} In the case sub judice, Hamm did not meet his burden, under App.R. 9(B),

and supply this Court with a transcript of the proceedings from his original plea and the

original sentencing hearings. If such transcripts were unavailable, other options were
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                     9

available to Hamm in order to supply this Court with a transcript for purposes of review.

Specifically, under App.R. 9(C), Hamm could have submitted a narrative transcript of the

proceedings, subject to objections from appellee and approval from the trial court. Also,

under App.R. 9(D), the parties could have submitted an agreed statement of the case in

lieu of the record. The record in this matter indicates Hamm did not attempt to avail himself

of either App.R. 9(C) or 9(D).

                                                 I.

       {¶26} After reviewing Hamm’s brief including his contentions, we have interpreted

Hamm’s assignment of error in the following manner: The trial court erred in overruling

Hamm’s Petition for Post-Conviction Relief without a Hearing.

                                       Standard of Review

       {¶27} We review a decision to grant or deny a petition for post-conviction relief,

including the decision whether to afford the petitioner a hearing, under an abuse-of-

discretion standard. State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446, 2022-Ohio-3991, 205 N.E.3d

513, ¶ 38, citing State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, 860 N.E.2d 77,

¶ 51-52, 58.

                                       Post-conviction relief

       {¶28} A post-conviction proceeding is a collateral civil attack on a criminal

conviction. State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 281, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999); State v.

Phillips, 9th Dist. No. 20692, 2002-Ohio-823. R.C. 2953.21(A) states, in part, as follows:

“(1) Any person who has been convicted of a criminal offense or adjudicated a delinquent

child and who 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
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                     10

of the United States 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”.

       {¶29} Therefore, Hamm, in a petition for post-conviction relief must rely upon

evidence outside of the trial court record to demonstrate a violation of a constitutional

right so as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the

Constitution of the United States. State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d

905(1999). In the case at bar, Hamm alleges that his trial counsel rendered ineffective

assistance because trial counsel did not investigate Hamm’s claim of self-defense.

          Right to evidentiary hearing in post-conviction proceedings is not automatic

       {¶30} In State v. Bunch, 171 Ohio St.3d 775, 2022-Ohio-4723, 220 N.E.3d 773,

the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the standard to be used for determining whether a

hearing should be held on a post-conviction petition and emphasized that it was only

addressing the standard for holding a hearing on a timely-filed post-conviction petition

and not the standard for ultimately granting relief on the petition. Id. at ¶ 22.

       {¶31} Under the post-conviction statutes, a trial court must, before granting an

evidentiary hearing, “determine whether there are substantive grounds for relief.” Id. at ¶

23, citing R.C. 2953.21(D). “If the petition ‘is sufficient on its face to raise an issue that

the petitioner’s conviction is void or voidable on constitutional grounds, and the claim is

one which depends upon factual allegations that cannot be determined by examination

of the files and records of the case, the petition states a substantive ground for relief.’”

Id., citing State v. Milanovich, 42 Ohio St.2d 46, 325 N.E.2d 540 (1975).
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                     11

       {¶32} The Bunch court further explained that in determining whether there are

substantive grounds for relief, the trial court must consider the entirety of the record from

the trial proceedings as well as any evidence filed by the parties in post-conviction

proceedings. Then, “[i]f the record does not on its face disprove the petitioner’s claim,”

the court is required to “proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues.” Id. at ¶ 24, citing

R.C. 2953.21(F).

                   Post-conviction review of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims

       {¶33} In order for an indigent petitioner to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing in

a postconviction relief proceeding on a claim that he was denied effective assistance of

counsel, the two-part analysis set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104

S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) is to be applied. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58, 106

S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); State v. Lytte, 48 Ohio St.2d 391, 358 N.E.2d 623

(1976); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989). The petitioner must

therefore prove that: 1). counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of

reasonable representation; and 2). there exists a reasonable probability that, were it not

for counsel’s errors, the result of the trial would have been different, or he would not have

pled guilty. Id.

   Application of res judicata in post-conviction-relief proceedings raising ineffective

                                 assistance of counsel claims

        {¶34} With respect to post-conviction petitions asserting grounds for relief based

on ineffective assistance, 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
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                                 12

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.” State v. Blanton, 171 Ohio St.3d 19, 2022-Ohio-3985,

215 N.E.3d 467, ¶ 2, citing State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112, 113-114, 443 N.E.2d 169

(1982). However, merely providing evidence outside the record is not sufficient to entitle

a petitioner to a hearing. Rather, to secure a hearing, a petitioner “‘must proffer evidence

which, if believed, would establish not only that his trial counsel had substantially violated

at least one of a defense attorney's essential duties to his client but also that said violation

was prejudicial to the [petitioner].’” Id. at ¶ 31, quoting Cole at 114, 443 N.E.2d 169; State

v. Johnson, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2022-09-063, 2023-Ohio-879, ¶21.

        {¶35} Hamm was represented in the trial court by a different attorney than the

attorney who had represented Hamm during his change of plea and sentencing. Hamm

attached his affidavit to his PCR petition that was not a part of the trial court record5.

              Review of affidavits submitted in support of postconviction relief petition

        {¶36} When reviewing a post-conviction petition a trial court “should give due

deference to affidavits sworn to under oath and filed in support of the petition, but may, in

the sound exercise of discretion, judge their credibility in determining whether to accept

the affidavits as “true statements of fact” or “discard frivolous claims.” State v. Calhoun,

86 Ohio St.3d 279, 282, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999). In determining the credibility of

supporting affidavits in post-conviction relief proceedings, the trial court should consider

all relevant factors, including (1) whether the judge reviewing the post-conviction relief

        5 The documents Hamm attached to his petition as Exhibits A- G were provided to his counsel

during discovery in the underlying case and, therefore, they would be considered a part of the trial court
record.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                       13

petition also presided at the trial, (2) whether multiple affidavits contain nearly identical

language, or otherwise appear to have been drafted by the same person, (3) whether the

affidavits contain or rely on hearsay, (4) whether the affiants are relatives of the petitioner,

or otherwise interested in the success of the petitioner's efforts, and (5) whether the

affidavits contradict evidence proffered by the defense at trial. Id. at 285, 714 N.E.2d 905.

“Moreover, a trial court may find sworn testimony in an affidavit to be contradicted by

evidence in the record by the same witness, or to be internally inconsistent, thereby

weakening the credibility of that testimony.” Id. “Depending on the entire record, one or

more of these or other factors may be sufficient to justify the conclusion that an affidavit

asserting information outside the record lacks credibility. Such a decision should be within

the discretion of the trial court.” Id.

          {¶37} A trial court that discounts the credibility of sworn affidavits must include an

explanation of its basis for doing so in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id.; State

v. Blanton, 171 Ohio St.3d 19, 2022-Ohio-3985, 215 N.E.3d 467, ¶98; State v. Barron,

12th Dist. Warren No. CA2022-09-059, 2023-Ohio-1249, ¶ 20, appeal not allowed, 170

Ohio St.3d 1517, 2023-Ohio-2771, 214 N.E.3d 590, ¶ 20.

          {¶38} Justice Donnelly recently expressed the following concern about the

treatment of a defendant’s affidavit submitted in support of his petition for post-conviction

relief,

                 It is, of course, possible that Dunlap’s claims would not have been

          borne out by the facts established during an evidentiary hearing. But he

          does not deserve to have his claims dismissed out of hand with the usual

          bromides about relying on a “self-serving affidavit.” A defendant in this
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                        14

       scenario is rarely ever going to have anything to back up a plea-withdrawal

       motion other than his own claims about what happened. And only an

       evidentiary hearing will establish whether those claims are true. As I stated

       in my dissenting opinion in State v. Bozso, 162 Ohio St.3d 68, 2020-Ohio-

       3779, 164 N.E.3d 344, “a defendant cannot be expected to make a record

       of the fact that he has been misinformed about a crucial issue at the time

       he is operating under that misinformation.” Id. at ¶ 44 (Donnelly, J.,

       dissenting). To say that a defendant’s claims in support of withdrawing his

       plea do not warrant an evidentiary hearing because they are not already

       backed up by solid, admissible evidence puts the defendant in an

       impossible position and ensures that an evidentiary hearing is never

       warranted no matter how specific and convincing a defendant’s claims

       might be.

State v. Dunlap, 161 Ohio St.3d 1416, 2021-Ohio-181, 161 N.E.3d 704 (Table), appeal

not allowed, Donnelly, J., dissenting. See also, State v. Blanton, 171 Ohio St.3d 19, 2022-

Ohio-3985, 215 N.E.3d 467, ¶98 (“But sworn affidavits ‘should not lightly be deemed

false.’ [State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279,] 284, [714 N.E.2d 905 (1999)]. And when a

trial court ‘discounts the credibility of sworn affidavits,’ it should ‘include an explanation of

its basis for doing so.’ Id. at 285, 714 N.E.2d 905.”).

                                    Hamm’s Substantive Claims

        {¶39} Hamm’s petition was filed by appointed counsel in the trial court. As

grounds, Hamm claims that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary because

he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Amended Petition to Vacate or Set Aside
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                    15

Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, filed Feb. 1, 2023 at 3. Specifically, Hamm

contends that his trial counsel failed to investigate or otherwise pursue self-defense. Id.

at 5. Further, Hamm argues that counsel failed to file a Notice of Self Defense. Id. at 11.

Hamm also posits that he was coerced into pleading guilty.

                                        Hamm’s guilty plea

       {¶40} A defendant has “the ultimate authority” to determine “whether to plead

guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal.” Jones v. Barnes,

463 U.S. 745, 751, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433

U.S. 72, 93, n. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977) (Burger, C. J., concurring). A plea

of guilty constitutes a complete admission of guilt. Crim. R. 11 (B) (1). “By entering a plea

of guilty, the accused is not simply stating that he did the discreet acts described in the

indictment; he is admitting guilt of a substantive crime.” United v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563,

570, 109 S.Ct. 757, 762, 102 L.Ed.2d 927(1989).

       {¶41} Crim. R. 11 requires guilty pleas to be made knowingly, intelligently and

voluntarily. The constitutional rights that the trial court must advise the defendant before

accepting his or her plea are: (1) a jury trial; (2) confrontation of witnesses against him;

(3) the compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; (4) that the state must

prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial; and (5) that the defendant

cannot be compelled to testify against himself. State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-

Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, ¶ 19. If the trial court fails to strictly comply with these

requirements, the defendant’s plea is invalid. Id. at ¶ 31.

       {¶42} The non-constitutional rights that the defendant must be informed of are: (1)

the nature of the charges; (2) the maximum penalty involved, which includes, if applicable,
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                   16

an advisement on post-release control; (3) if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible

for probation or the imposition of community control sanctions; and (4) that after entering

a guilty plea or a no-contest plea, the court may proceed directly to judgment and

sentencing. Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)(b); Veney at ¶ 10-13; State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d

86, 2008-Ohio-509, 423 N.E.2d 1224, ¶ 19-26, (post-release control is a non-

constitutional advisement).

       {¶43} For the non-constitutional rights, the trial court must substantially comply

with Crim.R. 11’s mandates. State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108, 564 N.E.2d 474

(1990). “Substantial compliance means that under the totality of the circumstances the

defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is

waiving.” Veney at ¶ 15.

       {¶44} Hamm does not argue that the trial court failed to comply with Crim R. 11’s

strict or substantial compliance requirements before accepting his guilty pleas. Further,

the trial judge noted in his entry overruling Hamm’s petition that he conducted a lengthy

inquiry concerning each of Hamm’s constitutional rights during the change of plea

hearing. Without a transcript we must presume the regularity of the proceedings.

                                     Hamm’s written waiver

       {¶45} A written waiver of constitutional rights is presumed to have been voluntary,

knowing, and intelligent. State v. Turner, 105 Ohio St.3d 331, 2005-Ohio-1938, 826

N.E.2d 266, ¶25. In this case, Hamm signed a written plea agreement.

                                  Hamm’s specific contentions

                               Failure to investigate self-defense
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                 17

       {¶46} Hamm filed a Motion to Compel on August 26, 2021 that the trial court set

for hearing on September 20, 2021. During the hearing, the state presented testimony

and admitted twenty exhibits. See, Judgment Entry Overruling Motion to Compel, filed

Sept. 21, 2021 at 1. The trial judge noted that during this hearing he also conducted a

hearing wherein Hamm was advised of the state’s plea offer and rejected the same on

the record. Entry Dismissing Petition to Vacate or Set Aside Judgment, filed July 25, 2023

at 3, n. 2.

       {¶47} On September 27, 2021, Hamm filed a Motion in Limine concerning

testimony relating to the Ohio Narcotics Intelligence Center. Hamm also filed a Motion in

Limine to preclude Hamm’s prior criminal history and periods of incarceration; alleged

domestic violence incidents and Hamm’s alleged drug activity. Hamm also sought to

exclude evidence of jail telephone calls between himself and family members for failure

of the state to comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 16. On September 28, 2021,

Hamm’s counsel filed requests for jury instructions on self-defense.

       {¶48} Hamm’s petition contains many references to evidence that he claims

supports his self-defense theory; however, Hamm does not submit anything of evidentiary

quality to demonstrate that his trial attorney was unaware of the evidence or of his self-

defense claim. Hamm’s contentions are contradicted by the record.

                                           Coercion

       {¶49} At the change of plea hearing and again at the sentencing hearing, Hamm

told the trial judge that he was satisfied with his attorney. Entry Dismissing Petition to

Vacate or Set Aside Judgment, filed July 25, 2023 at 4. The trial judge further noted that

trial counsel indicated that he had spoken with Hamm “probably at least 30 times.” Id.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                      18

Hamm does not claim that he was unaware, was not properly advised or misunderstood

the constitutional or non-constitutional rights that he was waiving before he entered his

guilty plea. Hamm does not argue that the trial judge failed to give him an opportunity to

speak or bring to the trial judge’s attention any of the contentions he now seeks to raise

concerning his attorney.

       {¶50} Hamm’s claim of coercion, moreover, is based on the potential challenge to

the state's evidence and not any misrepresentation, by his trial counsel, of the state's

evidence. State v. Graham, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-23-015, 2024-Ohio-1300, ¶ 27.

Hamm’s subsequent belief that there was a potential challenge to the state's evidence

does not render his plea invalid. See, e.g., State v. Piacella, 27 Ohio St.2d 92, 94, 271

N.E.2d 852 (1971), quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 757, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25

L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) (A plea is not invalidated by a defendant's failure to “correctly assess

every relevant factor” or “because he discovers long after the plea has been accepted

that his calculus misapprehended the quality of the State's case[.]”). State v. Graham, ¶

27.

       {¶51} Everything in Hamm's affidavit was known to him when he pleaded guilty

and could have been brought up to the prosecutor in the Crim.R. 11 proceedings, or to

the trial judge at the change of plea hearing or the sentencing hearing. State v. Pugh, 7th

Dist. Belmont No. 23 BE 0001, 2023-Ohio-4736, ¶ 27.

                                Failure to comply with Crim R. 12.2

       {¶52} Concerning Hamm’s claim that counsel did not comply with Crim. R. 12.2

by filing notice of his intent to assert a self-defense claim at trial, Hamm entered his guilty

plea on September 29, 2021. Crim. R. 12.2 did not become effective until July 1, 2022.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                                     19

         {¶53} Even if counsel's failure to comply with Crim R. 12.2 reflected deficient

performance, Hamm has failed to establish prejudice under Strickland. Hamm presented

nothing in the way of substantive evidence to suggest that the trial judge would have

denied him the opportunity to present his self-defense case to the jury had he gone to

trial.

                                            Conclusion

         {¶54} We find based upon our review of the entire record, the record discloses

that: (1) Hamm’s guilty plea was not the result of coercion, deception or intimidation; (2)

counsel was present at the time of the plea; (3) counsel’s advice was competent in light

of the circumstances surrounding the indictment; (4) the plea was made with the

understanding of the nature of the charges; and, (5) Hamm was motivated either by a

desire to seek a lesser penalty or a fear of the consequences of a jury trial, or both.

Therefore, the guilty plea has been voluntarily and intelligently made. See, State v.

Piacella, 27 Ohio St.2d 92, 271 N.E.2d 852 (1971), paragraph one of the syllabus.

         {¶55} Accordingly, we find that the petition, the supporting affidavits, the

documentary evidence, the files, and the records demonstrate that Hamm has not set

forth sufficient operative facts to establish substantive grounds for relief. Calhoun, 86 Ohio

St.3d at paragraph two of the syllabus; see R.C. 2953.21(C).

         {¶56} As Hamm did not establish substantive grounds for relief, the trial judge was

not required to conduct a hearing before overruling his petition for postconviction relief.

Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Hamm’s petition for post-conviction relief

without holding an evidentiary hearing.

         {¶57} Hamm’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023CA00030                                            20

      {¶58} The judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By Gwin, J.,

Delaney, P.J., and

Baldwin, J., concur