Court Opinion

ID: 9402752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 18:07:24.414315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:02.370319
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Howard, 2023-Ohio-2001.]

                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                  SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                        GREENE COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO                                     :
                                                   :
       Appellee                                    :   C.A. No. 2023-CA-13
                                                   :
 v.                                                :   Trial Court Case No. 2020 CR 0333
                                                   :
 DANIEL C. HOWARD                                  :   (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
                                                   :   Court)
       Appellant                                   :
                                                   :

                                              ...........

                                              OPINION

                                       Rendered on June 16, 2023

                                              ...........

MEGAN HAMMOND, Attorney for Appellee

BRANDON A. MOERMOND & FRANK M. BATZ, Attorneys for Appellant

                                             .............

HUFFMAN, J.

        {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Daniel C. Howard appeals from a trial court judgment

denying his timely petition for post-conviction relief following his conviction for aggravated

possession of drugs and aggravated trafficking of drugs. Because Howard did not present

an affidavit or any other supporting evidentiary documents containing operative facts that

would, if proven, establish a substantive ground for relief, the trial court did not abuse its
                                                                                           -2-

discretion in denying the petition without a hearing. The judgment of the trial court is

affirmed.

                          I.     Factual and Procedural Background

       {¶ 2} Howard was indicted on one count of aggravated trafficking of drugs and one

count of aggravated possession of drugs, both involving methamphetamine in an amount

equal to or exceeding 100 times the bulk amount, felonies of the first degree. He entered

a not guilty plea, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial in May 2021.

       {¶ 3} At Howard’s trial, the State presented evidence about the suspicious delivery

of packages to Howard’s residences. A canine had alerted to one of the packages, and

the postal inspector obtained a search warrant to open it; methamphetamine was found

inside. After surveillance and some controlled deliveries, Howard was arrested. When

questioned by detectives, he claimed that the packages had been delivered to his address

for his girlfriend, Monica Foster.

       {¶ 4} Foster testified for the State at trial. She testified that, several times a week

over a period of months, she drove Howard and certain packages to Mike Lyric’s house

in Dayton, Ohio, and, as payment, Howard received $40 from Lyric and gave Foster $20

and methamphetamine. Foster further testified that, after she became curious about what

the packages contained, Howard told her that the packages he delivered to Lyric

contained methamphetamine.

       {¶ 5} The jury returned guilty verdicts as to both counts charged in the indictment,

and Howard was sentenced to an indefinite prison term of 11 to 16 ½ years.

       {¶ 6} Howard appealed, alleging that his conviction was against the manifest
                                                                                             -3-

weight of the evidence. We rejected Howard’s assignment of error and affirmed his

conviction. State v. Howard, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 2021-CA-33, 2022-Ohio-1609.

       {¶ 7} Thereafter, Howard filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief with a

request for a hearing, arguing that he had been denied due process as guaranteed by

the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In his petition, Howard

argued that Foster had made false statements at his trial and the State knew or should

have known that Foster’s testimony was false. The trial court denied Howard’s petition for

post-conviction relief without a hearing, finding that he had failed to submit any evidentiary

material in support of his petition and, thus, failed to provide sufficient facts to demonstrate

a constitutional deprivation.

       {¶ 8} Howard now appeals from the judgment denying his petition for post-

conviction relief.

                                    II.    Assignment of Error

       {¶ 9} Howard’s sole assignment of error is as follows:

               THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN

       DENYING APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

       ON GROUNDS TESTIMONY GIVEN BY A MATERIAL WITNESS WAS

       FALSE AND APPELLEE KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN IT WAS

       FALSE.

       {¶ 10} According to Howard, over the course of several telephone conversations

between him and Foster while he was in prison, Foster became willing to admit and testify

that she had perjured herself at Howard’s trial when she alleged that Howard had been
                                                                                            -4-

responsible for the delivery of the packages containing methamphetamine. However,

Howard asserts that Foster disappeared after she expressed her willingness to testify and

that his attorney has been unable to locate her in order to obtain her affidavit.

       {¶ 11} R.C.   2953.21     governs    petitions   for   post-conviction   relief.   R.C.

2953.21(A)(1)(a) provides:

       A person in any of the following categories 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:

       (i) Any person who has been convicted of a criminal offense * * * and who

       claims 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.

       {¶ 12} “A petition for ‘postconviction relief is a means by which the petitioner may

present constitutional issues to the court that would otherwise be impossible to review

because the evidence supporting those issues is not contained in the record of the

petitioner’s criminal conviction.’ ” State v. Mott, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2021-CA-63, 2022-

Ohio-2894, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Monroe, 2015-Ohio-844, 29 N.E.3d 391, ¶ 37 (10th

Dist.). The postconviction relief process is a civil collateral attack on a criminal judgment

and is not an appeal of the judgment. State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 281, 714

N.E.2d 905 (1999).

       {¶ 13} The petitioner “may file a supporting affidavit and other documentary
                                                                                           -5-

evidence in support of the claim for relief.” R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(b). The trial court is

required to consider the petition and any supporting affidavits and documentary evidence.

R.C. 2953.21(D). “When the evidence a defendant relies upon [is] dehors the record that

evidence must meet a threshold of cogency. * * *.” State v. Hill, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2004-

CA-79, 2005-Ohio-3176, ¶ 8, quoting State v. Lawson, 103 Ohio App.3d 307, 659 N.E.2d

362 (12th Dist.). “Cogent evidence is that which is more than ‘marginally significant’ and

advances a claim ‘beyond mere hypothesis and desire for further discovery.’ ” Id.

       {¶ 14} A postconviction relief petitioner is not automatically entitled to a hearing.

Calhoun at 282. Instead, “a trial court has a gatekeeping role as to whether a defendant

will even receive a hearing.” State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, 860

N.E.2d 77, ¶ 51. Before granting a hearing on a petition, the trial court shall determine

whether there are substantive grounds for relief. State v. Perry, 2016-Ohio-4582, 66

N.E.3d 1109, ¶ 24 (2d Dist.). It is the petitioner’s initial burden to provide evidence

containing sufficient operative facts to show a cognizable claim of constitutional error.

State v. Kapper, 5 Ohio St.3d 36, 37-38, 448 N.E.2d 823 (1983). A post-

conviction relief petition may be denied, and no hearing is necessary, if the petition and

its supporting evidentiary documents do not contain operative facts that would, if proven,

establish a substantive ground for relief. State v. Armstrong, 56 Ohio App.3d 105, 108,

564 N.E.2d 1070 (8th Dist.1988). “A petitioner is not entitled to a hearing if his claim for

relief is belied by the record and is unsupported by any operative facts other than [his]

own self-serving affidavit or statements in his petition, which alone are legally insufficient

to rebut the record on review.” Kapper at 38. “Broad conclusory allegations are
                                                                                         -6-

insufficient, as a matter of law, to require a hearing.” State v. Coleman, 2d. Dist. Clark

Nos. 2004-CA-43, 2004-CA-44, 2005-Ohio-3874, ¶ 17.

       {¶ 15} “We review a trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21

for an abuse of discretion * * *.” State v. White, 118 Ohio St.3d 12, 2008-Ohio-1623, 885

N.E.2d 905, ¶ 45. “The term ‘abuse of discretion’ has been defined as a decision that is

unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Howard, 2d Dist.

Montgomery No. 26069, 2014-Ohio-4602, ¶ 8.

       {¶ 16} Howard argues that Foster made false statements at Howard’s trial and that

the State knew or should have known her testimony was false. According to Howard,

Foster and Howard had multiple telephone conversations while he was in prison, which

were recorded. Howard alleges that his counsel subpoenaed those recorded telephone

conversations to serve as evidence for Howard’s post-conviction petition, but receipt of

the recordings was delayed and certain conversations were corrupted. Howard also

alleges that his counsel was unable to obtain the recorded conversations in time to meet

the post-conviction petition filing deadline and thus that evidence was not available for

consideration by the trial court. Howard argues that Foster’s testimony was the only

evidence presented at trial directly connecting Howard to the packages containing

methamphetamine. He further argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error in

denying his petition for post-conviction relief. We disagree.

       {¶ 17} Howard filed his petition for post-conviction relief but did not offer any

affidavit or any other evidence to support his petition. While Howard argues that Foster

only offered perjured testimony at trial, he did not specify any details about the alleged
                                                                                          -7-

nature of Foster’s untrue testimony or her claimed admission that she had lied at his trial.

Instead, Howard offered bare allegations that Foster admitted to making untrue

statements at trial. Moreover, although Howard claims that Foster admitted to perjuring

herself on a recorded prison call, Howard did not provide any details about the call,

including the date, time, participating parties, or the particulars of the conversation, and

he did not include a recording or synopsis of the call or his own affidavit as evidence.

Howard had the initial burden to provide evidence containing sufficient operative facts to

establish a cognizable claim of constitutional error, but the self-serving statements and

broad conclusory allegations in his petition were legally insufficient to rebut the record or

to require a hearing in the trial court.

       {¶ 18} Additionally, while Howard alleges that the State was aware of Foster’s

untruthfulness, he presented no credible evidence to support this assertion, and his

petition stated that a hearing was necessary to determine if the State was aware of

Foster’s false statements. Howard presented no evidence demonstrating or suggesting

that the State knowingly allowed Foster to offer perjured testimony at trial. As a result,

Foster did not establish a violation of his constitutional rights.

       {¶ 19} Howard’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

                                           III.   Conclusion

       {¶ 20} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                       .............

WELBAUM, P.J. and TUCKER, J., concur.