Court Opinion

ID: 9901937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 18:08:27.717999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:41.777144
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Castellon, 2023-Ohio-4215.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                        :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,                  :
                                                               No. 112522
                 v.                                   :

ESTEPHEN CASTELLON,                                   :

                 Defendant-Appellant.                 :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 22, 2023

             Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                Case No. CR-16-610907-A

                                                Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Anthony T. Miranda, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee.

                 Estephen Castellon, pro se.

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J.:

                 Defendant-appellant Estephen Castellon appeals the trial court’s

denial of his motion for postconviction relief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I.   Factual Background and Procedural History

             Castellon is serving a seven-year prison sentence imposed after the

trial court found him guilty of rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(2)) and kidnapping (R.C.

2905.01(A)(4)) following a bench trial. This court previously summarized the

underlying facts of the case as follows:

      The following facts were adduced at trial. The victim, A.I., lived with
      her mother and Castellon, her mother’s boyfriend. The incident giving
      rise to the charges occurred in August 2016, at which time A.I. was 18
      years old.

      A.I. testified that, on the day at issue, she arrived home from work
      sometime after midnight. As she was coming in the house, Castellon
      was leaving to go to a bar. Upon entering the house, A.I. saw her
      mother sleeping on the couch in the living room.

      A.I. testified that her bedroom was in the attic of the house, and that it
      was hot in the attic during the summer months. As such, A.I. went to
      her mother’s bedroom to sleep in her mother’s bed. A.I. was awakened
      when she heard Castellon return home. He came into the mother’s
      bedroom, which was where he normally slept, and, upon finding A.I.
      there, told her he would go sleep on the couch.

      A.I. testified that she fell back asleep, but was awakened again. This
      time, she noticed that she was partially undressed, and that someone
      was engaging in sexual conduct with her. She was on her stomach and
      the person was on her legs and she could not move. At first A.I. thought
      someone had broken into the house and was scared. She did not want
      to move because she was afraid they would hurt her mother or son who
      were also in the house. After a couple of minutes, she noticed that the
      person was being “gentle.” The person then engaged in another form
      of sexual conduct with her. At that time, she realized that the person
      was Castellon — he was trying to have further sexual contact with her
      and was pulling her legs towards the edge of the bed. A.I. told him to
      stop, which he did.

      A.I. left the bedroom and contacted a friend, who came to the house;
      the two locked themselves in the attic. The next day, A.I. told her
      mother what had happened. She went to the police the following day
      and provided them with the clothes she had been wearing at the time
      of the incident. A police officer drove A.I. to the hospital. No rape kit
      was administered because it was a couple of days after the fact and A.I.
      had showered since the incident.

      A.I. testified that the following day, Castellon texted her, saying “I’m so
      sorry.” According to A.I., at the time of the incident, her mother was
      about 70 pounds heavier than she was, and so it would not have been
      easy for Castellon to confuse the two women. A.I.’s mother testified
      that Castellon told her that he blacked out and did not remember what
      had happened.

State v. Castellon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106813, 2019-Ohio-628, ¶ 7–12.

             The trial court, as factfinder, found Castellon guilty of two counts of

rape and one count of kidnapping with a sexual motivation specification. The court

acquitted Castellon of one count of attempted rape.

             In the time between the court’s verdict and sentencing, Castellon filed

numerous pro se motions and “notices” with the trial court, requesting various

forms of relief. Among these, Castellon filed a “demand to dismiss case due to

speedy trial violation” and a “demand for time tolling calculations of 3 days for each

1 day in custody pursuant to O.R.C. 2945.71.” Castellon also filed a “demand for

acquittal due to ineffective assistance of defense counsel for failing to subpoena the

federal technicia[n] and the state technicia[n] that conducted data dump files of

defendant’s cell phone” and a “motion for new trial due to newly discovered evidence

of a cell phone data drop transcript authored by Brian E. Cooney of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation.” In the latter motion, Castellon stated that local police

investigators “learned that Castellon’s phone would have to be transfer[r]ed to

Cleveland FBI office and then transfer[r]ed to the [FBI’s] Quantico lab.” He said

that police later retrieved the cell phone from the FBI when the FBI indicated “that
the phone was ready to be picked up.” Castellon argued that this “chain of events

gave rise to a cell phone data drop transcript” authored by an FBI employee, which

he said had not been produced in discovery.

             As our court previously summarized:

      The trial court acknowledged the [pro se] motions at the sentencing
      hearing, telling Castellon that “Ohio law does not allow dual
      representation. You have an assigned attorney * * * to represent you,
      which means that all of these motions can be stricken from the record
      because they were not filed by [your assigned attorney].” The trial court
      asked Castellon whether he wanted his assigned attorney to represent
      him at sentencing, to which he responded “no * * * unless I am given
      the opportunity to retain different counsel.” The trial court denied
      Castellon’s request for different counsel.

      The trial court then engaged in colloquy with Castellon to determine if
      he was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily giving up his right to
      counsel. After its colloquy with Castellon, the court denied his request
      for self-representation. Counsel told the court that she did not wish to
      adopt and argue any of the pro se motions Castellon had filed.

Castellon, 2019-Ohio-628, at ¶ 5–6.

             The trial court disregarded the pro se filings and sentenced Castellon

to seven years in prison. Castellon filed a direct appeal, through new counsel, in

which he argued the following five assignments of error:

      I.     There was insufficient evidence produced at trial to support a
             finding of guilt on all counts.

      II.    The appellant was found guilty against the manifest weight of the
             evidence.

      III.   Appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel in his
             trial.

      IV.    The cumulative errors committed during the trial deprived the
             appellant of a fair trial.
       V.     Appellant was denied his right to represent himself at
              sentencing.

              After oral argument, Castellon filed a pro se motion to file a

supplemental brief in his direct appeal. He argued that his appellate counsel failed

to set forth several assignments of error that he wanted included in his appeal,

including, among other things: (1) there was prosecutorial misconduct in that

evidence from his cell phone was “missing,” the state never produced “the chain of

custody” over his cell phone and body-camera recordings were deleted; (2) his trial

counsel was ineffective; (3) the state falsely claimed that he was a fugitive when “it

[was] well documented that [he] had relocated to California and established

residency” before the alleged rape and his defense counsel “had [his] proof of

address but chose not to present it”; and (4) he was denied his constitutional right

to a speedy trial.

              This court denied the motion to file a supplemental brief. State v.

Castellon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106813, Motion No. 525770 (Feb. 25, 2019). The

court overruled the assignments of error that were originally raised in the appeal

and affirmed the convictions and sentence. Castellon, 2019-Ohio-628, at ¶ 56.

              Castellon thereafter applied to reopen the appeal, arguing that his

appellate counsel was ineffective. He argued, among other things, that he was

denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. This court denied the application,

finding that “a substantive review of the docket * * * fails to demonstrate a violation

of Castellon’s right to a speedy trial.”   State v. Castellon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
106813, 2019-Ohio-3652, ¶ 16–18. The Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept

jurisdiction over Castellon’s appeal from that judgment.          12/17/2019 Case

Announcements, 2019-Ohio-5193.

               On March 27, 2019, Castellon filed a “petition to vacate or set aside

judgement [sic] of conviction or sentence” in the trial court. In that petition, he

argued that he was entitled to postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 because (1)

the state allegedly failed to turn over certain evidence related to his cell phone,

certain police body-worn camera recordings and recorded jail calls, and falsely

“painted the picture that he was running” from the charges; (2) his trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to investigate the evidence he said was missing or fabricated

and “failed to present proof of [his] California address.”

              The trial court summarily denied Castellon’s petition. Castellon did

not appeal that judgment.

              In April 2020, Castellon filed a pro se petition in the U.S. District

Court for the Northern District of Ohio seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. 2254, arguing — among other things — that his trial counsel was ineffective

for failing to challenge “manipulated” cell-phone data, missing body-camera footage

and jail calls, and for failing to “admit proof of address to impeach implication of

flight.” Castellon v. Forshey, N.D. Ohio No. 1:20-CV-00940-JRK, 2023 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 167433, 16 (Apr. 28, 2023). He also argued that the state engaged in

prosecutorial misconduct by presenting “post-indictment evidence” in the form of

jail-call recordings, “manipulat[ing] the content of the calls” and by “[t]he
warrantless breach of [his] cell phone, manipulation of the chain of custody and lack

of testimony from the technician who supposedly performed the data dump * * *.”

Id. at 17. He also argued that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Id. at 18.

               Castellon then moved for a stay of the federal habeas petition, arguing

that he received a federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) disclosure from the

U.S. Department of Justice that contained additional evidence he needed to present

in state court through a successive postconviction petition. Castellon v. Forshey,

N.D. Ohio No. 1:20 CV 940, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165927, 6 (Sept. 19, 2023).

               The federal trial court denied the stay and dismissed his habeas

petition, finding his claims to be either defaulted or meritless. Id. at 25.

               On February 10, 2023, Castellon filed the petition at issue in this

appeal — a successive petition for postconviction relief pursuant to R.C. 2953.23. In

the petition, Castellon raised the following arguments:

       I.     Due to constitutional speedy trial violation(s) Castellon was
              denied his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right(s).

       II.    Prosecutorial misconduct

       III.   The state abused the grand jury process introducing post
              indictment evidence

       IV.    The structure of the trial collapsed when the defendant was
              denied confrontation and compulsory process

       V.     Ineffective assistance of counsel

       VI.    Cumulative errors
              The state opposed the petition. On February 22, 2023, the trial court

summarily denied the petition.

             Castellon appealed, raising the following six assignments of error,

which mirror the arguments he made in his petition:

                            First Assignment of Error

      Due to Constitutional speedy trial violation(s) Castellon was denied his
      Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right(s)

                           Second Assignment of Error

      Prosecutorial Misconduct

                            Third Assignment of Error

      The State abused the grand jury process introducing post indictment
      Evidence

                           Fourth Assignment of Error

      The structure of the trial collapsed when the Defendant was denied
      Confrontation and Compulsory process

                            Fifth Assignment of Error

      Ineffective assistance of Counsel

                            Sixth Assignment of Error

      Cumulative Errors

II. Law and Analysis

              The trial court was without jurisdiction to consider Castellon’s

untimely and successive petition because he was not unavoidably prevented from

discovering the facts on which his arguments are based. He raised or could have
raised these arguments (or permutations of them) in his direct appeal or in his

earlier petition. Moreover, his arguments are barred by res judicata.

               Pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a)(i), a person who has been

convicted of a criminal offense 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 of the United States” may file a petition in

the court that imposed sentence, asking the court to vacate or set aside the judgment

or sentence or to grant other appropriate relief. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(A)(2),

petitions for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a)(i) must generally be

filed within 365 days after the trial transcript is filed in the direct appeal of the

conviction at issue. The trial transcript in Castellon’s direct appeal was filed on

March 26, 2018. Castellon’s second petition for postconviction relief was successive

and untimely under R.C. 2953.21(A).

               A trial court lacks jurisdiction over an untimely or successive petition

for postconviction relief unless the petition satisfies the criteria set forth under R.C.

2953.23(A)(1) or (2). R.C. 2953.21(A); R.C. 2953.23(A); State v. Bethel, 167 Ohio

St.3d 362, 2022-Ohio-783, 192 N.E.3d 470, ¶ 20; State v. Apanovitch, 155 Ohio

St.3d 358, 2018-Ohio-4744, 121 N.E.3d 351, ¶ 36–38 (“[A] petitioner’s failure to

satisfy R.C. 2953.23(A) deprives a trial court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits
of an untimely or successive postconviction petition.”). R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)1 states,

in relevant part:

      [A] court may not entertain a petition filed after the expiration of the
      period prescribed in [R.C. 2953.21(A)] or a second petition or
      successive petitions for similar relief on behalf of a petitioner unless
      * * * [b]oth of the following apply:

      (a) Either the petitioner shows that the petitioner was unavoidably
      prevented from discovery of the facts upon which the petitioner must
      rely to present the claim for relief, or, subsequent to the period
      prescribed in division (A)(2) of section 2953.21 of the Revised Code or
      to the filing of an earlier petition, 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.

      (b) The petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
      the constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have
      found the petitioner guilty of the offense of which the petitioner was
      convicted[.]

               “Res judicata generally bars a convicted defendant from litigating a

postconviction claim that was raised or could have been raised at trial or on direct

appeal.” Bethel, 167 Ohio St.3d 362, 2022-Ohio-783, 193 N.E.3d 470, at ¶ 17, citing

State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraph nine of the

syllabus; State v. Hatton, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3991, ¶ 22 (“Res judicata

applies to * * * petitions for postconviction relief.”), citing State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio

St.3d 158, 679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997). Res judicata operates to bar successive petitions

for postconviction relief that raise claims that were or could have been raised on

      1R.C. 2953.23(A)(2), which applies to offenders for whom DNA testing was
performed under R.C. 2953.71 through 2953.81 or former R.C. 2953.82, is inapplicable
here.
direct appeal or in a prior petition. See, e.g., State v. Waver, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

108820, 2020-Ohio-2724, ¶ 32; see also State v. Mack, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

101261, 2018-Ohio-301, ¶ 15 (“The doctrine of res judicata prevents repeated attacks

on a final judgment for issues that were or could have been previously litigated.”);

State v. Bridges, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 103634 and 104506, 2016-Ohio-7298,

¶ 33 (“[A] postconviction petition does not provide a petitioner a second opportunity

to litigate his or her conviction.”).

                We review a decision to grant or deny a petition for postconviction

relief for abuse of discretion. Hatton at ¶ 38, citing State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d

377, 2006-Ohio-6679, 860 N.E.2d 77, ¶ 51–52, 58. However, whether a trial court

has subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain an untimely or successive petition for

postconviction relief is a question of law, which we review de novo. Hatton at ¶ 38,

citing Apanovitch at ¶ 24.

                In this case, Castellon’s petition did not satisfy the requirements of

R.C. 2953.23(A)(1). Castellon’s petition fails to show that he was unavoidably

prevented from discovering the facts on which the claims in his petition were based,

that any new federal or state right was recognized subsequent to his filing of the

earlier petition or that, but for the alleged constitutional error, no reasonable

factfinder would have found him guilty of the offenses of which he was convicted.

This is not a case involving new claims or issues that have not been litigated, or could

not have been litigated, before. Compare Hatton at ¶ 25.
               Castellon argues that his petition was based on newly discovered

information obtained through a FOIA disclosure made by the U.S. Department of

Justice on November 7, 2022. He attached the FOIA response to his petition; the

disclosure includes a search warrant issued by the Cuyahoga County Court of

Common Pleas authorizing the search of Castellon’s cell phone and internal records

and communications of the Federal Bureau of Investigation related to the FBI’s

assistance in unlocking his cell phone. Castellon argues that these documents led

him to discover constitutional violations that he was unavoidably prevented from

discovering sooner.

              The state responds that Castellon knew in advance of trial that the

FBI had assisted in unlocking his cell phone and that his phone was searched

pursuant to a warrant. It argues that Castellon’s petition was not based on any newly

discovered evidence, that his claims are barred by res judicata and that the claims

are substantively meritless.

               We consider each of Castellon’s assignments of error in turn.

      A. First Assignment of Error – Speedy Trial

              Castellon asks this court to “dismiss the entire indictment based on

the violation(s) of his constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial, as the

amount of evidence that was originally available at the time of indictment that is

now either missing or destroyed has extremely prejudiced” him.

               In support of his argument that he was unavoidably prevented from

making this argument sooner, Castellon points to two documents outside the
record: (1) a document from the Riverside County (California) Sheriff’s Department

that states that Castellon was taken into custody on December 5, 2016, and (2) the

FBI’s FOIA response.

               Castellon seems to be arguing that the state knew that he was not a

fugitive but treated him as such to manipulate the speedy-trial clock, then secured a

warrant that allowed them an indefinite amount of time to search his phone for the

purpose of further delaying trial.

               Castellon was not unavoidably prevented from asserting these

arguments sooner.      He knew that he was arrested on December 5, 2016, in

California, based on these allegations.      He also knew — from a police report

produced in discovery that is also attached to his successive petition for

postconviction relief — that investigators secured a warrant to search his phone in

January 2017, transferred the phone to the FBI for assistance and received it back

unlocked in May 2017. Even if Castellon did not have a copy of the actual warrant

until November 2022, he knew that there had been a warrant and knew the

timetable and chain of custody of how that warrant was executed. Thus, he was not

“unavoidably prevented” from arguing that the means of searching his phone

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

               Indeed, Castellon has raised a constitutional-speedy-trial argument

before — he raised it in his pro se filings before sentencing, then in his motion to file

a supplemental brief in the direct appeal, then in his application to reopen that

appeal and then again in his federal habeas case. Because Castellon was not
unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts on which his speedy-trial

argument is based, the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the argument

in this successive and untimely petition.

               Moreover, the argument is barred by res judicata.          This court

previously considered Castellon’s constitutional-speedy-trial argument and found

that “a substantive review of the docket * * * fails to demonstrate a violation of

Castellon’s right to a speedy trial.”   State v. Castellon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

106813, 2019-Ohio-3652, ¶ 16–18.

               We, therefore, overrule Castellon’s first assignment of error.

      B. Second Assignment of Error – Prosecutorial Misconduct

               Castellon argues that the state suppressed materially exculpatory

evidence from him. He says the state suppressed a DMV record that showed that he

established a California residence in June 2016, that “Detective Mladek knew this”

and that the state continued to allege that his buying a plane ticket to California

constituted evidence of consciousness of guilt. He also says that the state suppressed

the search warrant that had been obtained to search his cell phone. He further

claims that police deleted text messages from his cell phone while he was in custody

and destroyed two body-camera recordings.         Finally, he claims that the state

indicted him without securing a DNA sample from the victim’s romantic partner for

comparison to DNA recovered in the case.

               Castellon again relies on only two categories of documents in support

of his argument that he was unavoidably prevented from making these claims
sooner: (1) documents he says show that he established a residency in California

before the rape and (2) the FOIA response, which included the search warrant that

he knew about but apparently did not have a copy of before trial. The other citations

in the petition are to evidence in the trial record.

               Castellon could have, and has, previously argued that the state

improperly cast him as a fugitive. He obviously knew the circumstances of his

residency and work in California long before he received the federal government’s

FOIA response. He raised this argument (or permutations of it) in his pro se motion

to file a supplemental brief in his direct appeal, then in his federal habeas case and

then again in his first petition for postconviction relief.

               The same can be said about Castellon’s argument that the state

allegedly deleted text messages from his cell phone and deleted body-camera

recordings. Castellon obviously knew what was on his own cell phone long before

the FOIA response and his trial counsel cross-examined state witnesses about the

circumstances of the state’s deletion of the body-camera recordings at trial. Indeed,

Castellon raised these arguments in his pro se motion to file a supplemental brief in

his direct appeal, in his federal habeas case and in his first petition for

postconviction relief.

               Similarly, no new evidence outside the record supports Castellon’s

argument that the state acted inappropriately in securing an indictment before

obtaining a DNA reference sample from the victim’s romantic partner. He could
have raised that argument at trial, in the direct appeal or in his first petition for

postconviction relief.

               While Castellon says that he was never provided a copy of the search

warrant used to search his cell phone until the FOIA response, he was well aware

that the warrant existed before trial. The fact that the warrant existed is reflected in

a police report produced by the state in discovery. Castellon could have raised an

argument regarding the state’s alleged suppression of the warrant at trial, in the

direct appeal and in his first petition for postconviction relief.

               Because Castellon was not unavoidably prevented from discovering

the facts on which these arguments are based, the trial court was without jurisdiction

to consider the arguments in this successive and untimely petition. Moreover,

because Castellon raised several of these arguments in his first petition for

postconviction relief and did not appeal the trial court’s denial of his first petition,

and he could have raised all of these arguments in prior proceedings, those

arguments are barred by res judicata.

               We, therefore, overrule Castellon’s second assignment of error.

      C. Third Assignment of Error – Post-Indictment Evidence

               Castellon argues that there was an abuse of the grand-jury process

because the state continued to possess his cell phone for purposes of searching it

pursuant to the warrant, even after he was indicted. Castellon cites no evidence

outside the record in support of this claim.         To the extent that the claim is

purportedly based on the FOIA disclosure, the same reasoning applies to this
assignment of error as applies to his first: Castellon was well aware, before trial, of

how investigators searched his phone and the timeline for doing so. He was not

unavoidably prevented from making this argument at trial, in the direct appeal or in

his first petition for postconviction relief. Indeed, he raised this “post-indictment

evidence” argument in his first petition for postconviction relief.

               Because Castellon was not unavoidably prevented from discovering

the facts on which this argument is based, the trial court was without jurisdiction to

consider the arguments in this successive and untimely petition. Moreover, this

argument is also barred by res judicata.

               We, therefore, overrule Castellon’s third assignment of error.

      D. Fourth Assignment of Error – Confrontation and Compulsory
         Process

               Castellon seems to argue that he was denied the right of compulsory

process because (1) the police detective who testified about the contents of his cell

phone was not qualified to analyze the contents of the phone, (2) it was not

sufficiently established at trial how the data extraction of the phone was performed

and (3) the testimony of the person who actually performed the extraction was

“crucial” to this case but that person did not testify. He does not point to any

evidence outside the record in support of this claim and makes no attempt to show

how he was unavoidably prevented from raising this argument sooner. Indeed, he

raised this argument in his pro se filings before sentencing.

               Because Castellon was not unavoidably prevented from asserting

these arguments in his direct appeal or in his earlier petition for postconviction
relief, the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the arguments in this

successive and untimely petition. Moreover, the argument is barred by res judicata.

              We, therefore, overrule Castellon’s fourth assignment of error.

      E. Fifth Assignment of Error – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

               Castellon argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by (1) failing to

call the translator who translated the jail calls or move to suppress the jail calls

before trial, (2) failing to investigate or move to suppress the warrant for the cell

phone or the evidence extracted from the cell phone and failing to adequately raise

the issue of the allegedly missing text messages and (3) failing to adequately address

the issue of the missing body-camera recordings.

               Castellon has raised all of these arguments before, either in his

presentence pro se motions, in the direct appeal or in his first petition for

postconviction relief. His petition fails to show that he was unavoidably prevented

from making these arguments and almost every citation in support of these

arguments is a citation to the record, not some piece of newfound evidence outside

the record.

               Because Castellon was not unavoidably prevented from discovering

the facts on which these arguments are based, the trial court was without jurisdiction

to consider the arguments in this successive and untimely petition. Moreover, the

arguments are barred by res judicata.

              We, therefore, overrule Castellon’s fifth assignment of error.
         F. Sixth Assignment of Error – Cumulative Error

                Castellon argues that “the cumulative effect and prejudice of these

intersecting constitutional violations” as stated in his first five assignments of error

“had a chilling effect on the defendant’s due process * * *.” As discussed above,

Castellon was not unavoidably prevented from raising any of his other arguments at

trial, in the direct appeal or in his first petition for postconviction relief. Thus, he

was not unavoidably prevented from raising the argument that those errors, taken

together, warrant a new trial.

                We, therefore, overrule Castellon’s sixth assignment of error.

III. Conclusion

                 Castellon’s second petition for postconviction relief merely rehashes

arguments that he has previously raised. He has not shown that he was unavoidably

prevented from making these arguments in his direct appeal or in a prior petition

for postconviction relief. Because Castellon did not make the requisite showing

under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider his petition

for postconviction relief and properly denied it.

                Having overruled Castellon’s assignments of error for the reasons

stated above, we affirm.

         It is ordered that the appellee recover from the appellant the costs herein

taxed.

         It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 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.

_________________________________
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., and
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR