Court Opinion

ID: 9882664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:18:13.49911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:20.004208
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Holloway, 2023-Ohio-3600.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                             SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 MAHONING COUNTY

                                          STATE OF OHIO,

                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                                   v.

                                     JERMAILL HOLLOWAY,

                                       Defendant-Appellant.

                        OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                         Case No. 22 MA 0110

                                   Criminal Appeal from the
                       Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio
                                   Case No. 2016 CR 1351

                                         BEFORE:
                Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, David A. D’Apolito, Judges.

                                               JUDGMENT:
                                                 Affirmed.

Atty. Gina DeGenova, Mahoning County Prosecutor and Atty. Edward A. Czopur,
Assistant Prosecutor, 21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503,
for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jermail Holloway, Pro se, Inmate No. A693841, Lake Erie Correctional Institution, 501
Thompson Rd., Conneaut, Ohio 44030, Defendant-Appellant

                                     Dated: September 29, 2023
                                                                                         –2–

WAITE, J.

       {¶1}   Appellant Jermaill Holloway appeals a September 30, 2022 judgment of the

Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas denying his postconviction petition as

untimely. Because Appellant untimely filed his petition, his arguments are without merit

and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                              Factual and Procedural History

       {¶2}   The facts of this matter were discussed in Appellant’s recent appeal:

       On December 1, 2016, Appellant was indicted on two counts of murder,

       felonies of the first degree in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A)(D), (B)(D); one

       count of improper discharge of a firearm at or into habitation, a felony of the

       second degree in violation of R.C. 2923.161(A)(1), (D); eight counts of

       felonious assault, felonies of the second degree in violation of R.C. 2903.11

       (A)(2), (D).   All counts were accompanied by a firearm specification

       pursuant to R.C. 2941.145(A). The indictment stemmed from an incident

       on March 20, 2016 where Appellant was asked to leave a house after an

       argument over a video game. (3/9/17 Sentencing Hrg. Tr., p. 8.) Apparently,

       the argument continued, leading both Appellant and the victim to fire shots

       at one another. (3/9/17 Sentencing Hrg. Tr., p. 9.) According to witnesses,

       the victim fired from inside the house and Appellant fired from outside of the

       house.

       On March 8, 2017, Appellant pleaded guilty to an amended charge of

       voluntary manslaughter, a felony of the first degree in violation of R.C.

Case No. 22 MA 0110
                                                                                           –3–

      2903.03(A)(C), and all eight counts of felonious assault. The remaining

      murder charge and the sole count of improper discharge of a firearm were

      dismissed. (3/8/17 Plea Agreement.)

      On March 9, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate total

      of fifteen years of incarceration. On March 10, 2017, Appellant wrote a letter

      to the trial court which was construed as a motion to withdraw his plea. After

      a hearing on the matter, the court denied the motion. Appellant's timely

      direct appeal followed in State v. Holloway, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA

      0048, 2018-Ohio-5393 (“Holloway I”). In Holloway I, Appellant raised

      assignments of error pertaining to his guilty plea, his sentence, the trial

      court's decision to deny his motion to withdraw his plea, and the

      effectiveness of his trial counsel. We affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

      Id. at ¶ 55.

      Appellant subsequently filed an application to reopen his appeal based on

      his appellate counsel's representation. He claims that counsel failed to

      challenge the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his plea or to

      challenge the voluntariness of his plea.        He alleges counsel was also

      deficient in failing to raise as error his lack of an evidentiary hearing on these

      claims prior to sentencing. Additionally he urges that appellate counsel

      should have raised prosecutorial misconduct as an assignment of error in

      his direct appeal. State v. Holloway, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 0048,

      2019-Ohio-1575 (“Holloway II”). We denied the application.

Case No. 22 MA 0110
                                                                                          –4–

         On November 20, 2020, Appellant filed a second motion to withdraw his

         guilty plea. In this motion he raised seven claims: trial counsel's failure to

         adequately investigate the charge and prepare for trial, prosecutorial

         misconduct for failing to provide exculpatory evidence, the withholding of

         evidence of a second shooter, counsel's allegedly erroneous statement that

         self-defense is not available in Ohio, and an alleged breach of a plea

         agreement by the state. On March 18, 2021, the trial court denied the

         motion. Appellant now appeals this entry.

State v. Holloway, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 21 MA 0035, 2022-Ohio-1459, ¶ 2-6 (“Holloway

III”).

         {¶3}    Subsequently, on July 15, 2022, Appellant filed a “Motion to Vacate or Set

Aside Judgment of Conviction or Sentence,” which the trial court construed as a

postconviction petition. On August 9, 2022, the trial court denied the motion. Thereafter,

on September 30, 2022, the trial court filed a nunc pro tunc entry correcting a date

contained within its prior judgment entry. It is from this entry that Appellant timely appeals.

                                    Non-Conforming Brief

         {¶4}    In his brief, Appellant has violated several of the appellate rules. App.R.

19(A)(2) requires an appellant to provide “[a] table of cases alphabetically arranged,

statutes, and other authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief where cited.”

While Appellant set out a “Case Law” section, this section contains no actual case or

statutory law.

         {¶5}    App.R. 16(A)(7) requires “[a]n argument containing the contentions of the

appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons

Case No. 22 MA 0110
                                                                                        –5–

in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the

record on which appellant relies. The argument may be preceded by a summary.” Eight

of Appellant’s ten assignments of error solely provide a heading, but include no law,

relevant facts, or argument. The remaining two assignments fail to cite any case or

statutory law and merely present conclusory statements. Thus, Appellant’s brief fails to

conform to the requirements of the appellate rules. Even though these violations are

grounds for dismissal, in the interest of fairness and justice we will attempt to address

Appellant’s concerns.

                                  Postconviction Petition

       {¶6}   In order to successfully assert a postconviction petition, “the petitioner must

demonstrate a denial or infringement of his rights in the proceedings resulting in his

conviction sufficient to render the conviction void or voidable under the Ohio or United

States Constitutions.” State v. Agee, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 14 MA 0094, 2016-Ohio-

7183, ¶ 9, citing R.C. 2953.21(A)(1).

       {¶7}   The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating “substantive grounds for

relief” through the record or any supporting affidavits. Agee at ¶ 9. However, as a

postconviction petition does not provide a forum to relitigate issues that could have been

raised on direct appeal, res judicata bars many claims. Agee at ¶ 10.

                                        Timeliness

       {¶8}   R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) requires a petitioner to file a petition within one year

after the trial transcripts are filed in the court of appeals. In relevant part, R.C.

2953.21(A)(2) provides that a postconviction petition:

Case No. 22 MA 0110
                                                                                           –6–

       [S]hall 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[.] * * * If no appeal is taken, except as

       otherwise provided in section 2953.23 of the Revised Code, the petition

       shall be filed no later than three hundred sixty-five days after the expiration

       of the time for filing the appeal.

       {¶9}   Ohio law provides a two-part exception to this rule if the petitioner can

demonstrate that he or she meets the criteria found in R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a)-(b).

Pursuant to R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a), the petitioner must either show that he: “was

unavoidably prevented from discovery of the facts upon which [he] must rely to present

the claim for relief, or, * * * the United States Supreme Court recognized a new federal or

state right that applies retroactively to persons in the petitioner's situation, and the petition

asserts a claim based on that right.”

       {¶10} Appellant’s trial transcripts were filed in this Court on June 27, 2017. His

instant petition was filed on July 7, 2022, well beyond the established deadline. Appellant

attempts to explain his tardiness by arguing that his appellate counsel erroneously

advised he was barred from filing any postconviction petition because he pleaded guilty.

Appellant claims he learned that advice was erroneous, when this Court informed him in

an appellate opinion in Holloway III that some of his claims were more appropriately raised

in a postconviction petition.

       {¶11} The law governing such petitions clearly provides only two exceptions to the

timeliness requirement: (1) a showing that Appellant was unavoidably prevented from

discovering the fact on which he relies, or (2) that the United States Supreme Court

Case No. 22 MA 0110
                                                                                       –7–

created a new federal or state law that applies retroactively to Appellant. Appellant

concedes that he was aware of the facts on which he relies in this petition at the time of

trial, and that he has not alleged any new federal or state law that applies to his case. As

Appellant recognizes neither exception to the deadlines to file a postconviction petition

apply, Appellant’s petition is untimely.

                            ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

       THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED IT’S [SIC] DISCRETION BY FAILING TO

       ISSUE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN DENYING

       APPELLANTS [SIC] POST CONVICTION RELIEF PETITION.

                            ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRORED [SIC] BY DENYING APELLANTS [SIC]

       POST     CONVICTION        RELIEF    PETITION     BECAUSE       APPELLANT

       SATISFIED R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a). IN EXCUSING SUCH A DELAY IN

       FILING THE PETITION.

                            ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANTS [SIC] PCP

       PETITION ABSENT A HEARING BECAUSE APPELLANT SHOWED IN

       CLAIM NUMBER THREE ADEQUATE EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS

       DEPRIVED OF HIS 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE

       ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY HIS COUNSELS [SIC] FAILURE TO

       INVESTIGATE THE CASE AND FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS THE

Case No. 22 MA 0110
                                                                 –8–

      INDICTMENT DUE TO THE POLICE VIOLATING HIS DUE PROCESS

      RIGHTS BY TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE AND MAKING A FALSE

      POLICE REPORT TO SECURE AN INDICTMENT ON APPELLANT.

                      ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5

      THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APELLANTS [SIC] PCR

      PETITION ABSENT A HEARING BECAUSE APPELLANT SHOWED

      ADEQUATE EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS 6 TH

      AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY

      HIS COUNSELS [SIC] FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY VISIT APPELLANT

      AND PREPARE FOR TRIAL.

                      ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 7

      THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANTS [SIC] PCR

      PETITION ABSENT A HEARING BECAUSE APPELLANT SHOWED IN

      CLAIM NUMBER FOUR HE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS 6TH AMENDMENT

      RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY HIS COUNSELS

      [SIC] FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY VISIT APPELLANT AND PREPARE

      FOR TRIAL.

                      ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 8

      THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANTS [SIC] PCR

      PETITION ABSENT A HEARING BECAUSE APPELLANT SHOWED HE

Case No. 22 MA 0110
                                                                                     –9–

      WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE

      ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

                           ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 9

      THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANTS [PCR]

      PETITION ABSENT A HEARING BECAUSE APPELLANT SHOWED THAT

      HE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE

      ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN CLAIM NUMBER SIX.

                           ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 10

      THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANTS [PCR]

      PETITION ABSENT A HEARING BECAUSE APPELLANT SHOWED THAT

      HIS 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF

      COUNSEL WAS DEPRIVED IN CLAIM NUMBER SEVEN.

      {¶12} As earlier discussed, Appellant has presented nothing more than a heading

for these assignments. He provides no facts, no law, and raises no arguments. As we

are thus unable to review these issues, Appellant’s first, second, fourth, fifth, seventh,

eighth, ninth, and tenth assignments of error are without merit and are overruled.

                           ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3

      THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APELLANTS [SIC] POST

      CONVICTION RELIEF PETITION ABSENT A HEARING BECAUSE

      APPELLANT SHOWED ADEQUATE EVIDENCE IN CLAIM NUMBER

Case No. 22 MA 0110
                                                                                            – 10 –

       ONE THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO

       EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

                              ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 6

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APELLANTS [SIC] PCR

       PETITION ABSENT A HEARING BECAUSE APPELLANT SHOWED THAT

       HE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS 6TH AMENDMENT TO EFFECTIVE

       ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY HIS COUNSELS [SIC] FAILURE TO

       INVESTIGATE THE CASE AND FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS THE

       INDICTMENT.

       {¶13} Instead of addressing the errors alleged in these assignments, Appellant

actually argues ineffective assistance of counsel. Regardless, “[t]he requirement that a

post-conviction petition be filed timely is jurisdictional. State v. Peyatt, 7th Dist. Monroe

No. 21 MO 0001, 2021-Ohio-3310, ¶ 12, citing R.C. 2953.23(A). Where a postconviction

petition is untimely filed, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to hold a hearing. Id. at ¶ 15, citing

R.C. 2953.21(F). Thus, Appellant’s third and sixth assignments of error are without merit

and are overruled.

                                           Conclusion

       {¶14} Appellant argues that he did not realize he was eligible to file a

postconviction petition and so was unable to timely file his petition. Because timely filing

is jurisdictional and Appellant acknowledges neither of the two exceptions apply, his

arguments are without merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Case No. 22 MA 0110
                            – 11 –

Robb, J. concurs.

D’Apolito, P.J., concurs.

Case No. 22 MA 0110
[Cite as State v. Holloway, 2023-Ohio-3600.]

        For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, Appellant’s assignments of

error are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment

of the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs waived.

        A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in

this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a

certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.

                                        NOTICE TO COUNSEL

        This document constitutes a final judgment entry.