Court Opinion

ID: 9965891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 18:08:13.889727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:51.308714
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Snowden, 2024-Ohio-1706.]

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

 STATE OF OHIO                                      :
                                                    :
       Appellee                                     :   C.A. No. 29932
                                                    :
 v.                                                 :   Trial Court Case No. 1993 CR 00218
                                                    :
 JAMES SNOWDEN                                      :   (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
                                                    :   Court)
       Appellant                                    :
                                                    :

                                               ...........

                                               OPINION

                                        Rendered on May 3, 2024

                                               ...........

JAMES SNOWDEN, Appellant, Pro Se

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by NATHAN D. VANDERHORST, Attorney for Appellee

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

TUCKER, J.

        {¶ 1} James Snowden appeals pro se from the trial court’s order overruling his

“motion to vacate illegal sentence.”

        {¶ 2} Snowden contends the trial court erred in denying him relief based on

defective jury verdict forms and based on ineffective assistance of trial and appellate
                                                                                          -2-

counsel for failing to raise the issue.

       {¶ 3} We conclude that Snowden’s argument about the verdict forms and his claim

regarding ineffective assistance of trial counsel are barred by res judicata. Snowden’s

allegation of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel cannot be pursued in post-

conviction proceedings. The remedy would be an App.R. 26(B) application for reopening.

Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment will be affirmed.

                                          I. Background

       {¶ 4} A jury convicted Snowden of involuntary manslaughter, aggravated robbery,

and felonious assault in 1993. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences resulting in

an aggregate prison term of 24 to 65 years. This court affirmed on direct appeal in State

v. Snowden, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 14107, 1994 WL 587557 (Oct. 28, 1994),

overruling three assignments of error.

       {¶ 5} In 1999, Snowden filed a motion to merge allied offenses of similar import.

The trial court overruled the motion, and this court affirmed in State v. Snowden, 2d Dist.

Montgomery No. 17785, 2000 WL 20884 (Jan. 14, 2000), finding res judicata applicable

while also rejecting the allied-offense argument on the merits.

       {¶ 6} In October 2022, Snowden filed his motion to vacate illegal sentence, which

the trial court construed as a petition for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21.

Snowden argued that the jury’s verdict forms were deficient under R.C. 2945.75. He also

claimed that the trial court’s judgment entry failed to recite the manner of his conviction,

failed to indicate that it had considered the statutory principles and purposes of felony

sentencing, and failed to include jail-time credit. The trial court denied relief, concluding
                                                                                         -3-

that Snowden’s filing was untimely and that his claims were barred by res judicata.

Snowden appeals, advancing two assignments of error.

                                        II. Analysis

       {¶ 7} The first assignment of error states:

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT-

       APPELLANT DENYING HIM A FAIR SENTENCING HEARING WHERE

       THE JURY’S VERDICT FORMS OMITS AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT

       FAILING TO MEET REVISED CODE SECTION 2945.75(A)(2).

       {¶ 8} Snowden’s first assignment of error implicates R.C. 2945.75, which applies

when the presence of one or more additional elements elevates the seriousness of an

offense. In particular, he cites R.C. 2945.75(A)(2) which provides: “A guilty verdict shall

state either the degree of the offense of which the offender is found guilty, or that such

additional element or elements are present. Otherwise, a guilty verdict constitutes a

finding of guilty of the least degree of the offense charged.”

       {¶ 9} Snowden contends the statute applied to his offenses of involuntary

manslaughter, aggravated robbery, and felonious assault without detailing how it applied.

He simply claims the jury’s verdict forms failed to state either the degree of his offenses

or that some unidentified additional element or elements had been found.

       {¶ 10} Without regard to the merits of Snowden’s argument, it at least arguably is

not subject to review under any post-conviction procedure provided by rule or statute. In

the trial court, Snowden styled his motion as one to “vacate illegal sentence,” citing R.C.

2945.75, the verdict-form statute. The trial court characterized the motion as one seeking
                                                                                         -4-

post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21, which primarily addresses constitutional

violations. But Snowden’s claim about deficient verdict forms raised a statutory issue, not

a constitutional one. State v. Brand, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210323, 2022-Ohio-1185,

¶ 5. His argument about the forms also did not raise an issue reviewable in a new-trial

motion, plea-withdrawal motion, petition for a writ of mandamus, declaratory-judgment

action, habeas petition, or Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Id. The verdict-form issue additionally was

not reviewable through a motion to correct a void judgment, as any error in the forms

would have rendered the judgment merely voidable. Id. at ¶ 6.

       {¶ 11} In any event, we conclude that res judicata applied even if Snowden’s

complaint about the verdict forms could be construed as alleging a constitutional violation

or if some other avenue of relief made the issue reviewable. The issue could have been

pursued on direct appeal because it did not depend on any evidence outside of the record.

State v. Wright, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2020-CA-33, 2021-Ohio-610, ¶ 6-7. As the trial court

noted, Snowden’s motion also was grossly untimely insofar as statutory post-conviction

relief was concerned. For each of the foregoing reasons, the first assignment of error is

overruled.

       {¶ 12} The second assignment of error states:

       DEFENDANT-APPELLANT              WAS      DEPRIVED       OF     EFFECTIVE

       ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSELS IN VIOLATION

       OF THE 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES

       CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 AND SECTION 16 OF

       THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
                                                                                         -5-

       {¶ 13} Snowden contends his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective

assistance by failing to raise the issue regarding the verdict forms.

       {¶ 14} Although ineffective assistance of trial counsel can constitute grounds for

post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21, res judicata applies here because Snowden

had a new attorney on appeal and his claim did not depend on evidence outside of the

record. State v. Blanton, 171 Ohio St.3d 19, 2022-Ohio-3985, 215 N.E.3d 467, ¶ 2.

       {¶ 15} Insofar as Snowden challenged his appellate counsel’s effectiveness,

“claims alleging the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are not cognizable in post-

conviction proceedings[.]” State v. Sellars, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28860, 2021-Ohio-

1433, ¶ 25. “The proper avenue for relief for such a claim would instead be through an

application to reopen under App.R. 26(B).” Id. Accordingly, the second assignment of

error is overruled.

                                     III. Conclusion

       {¶ 16} The judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

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

EPLEY, P.J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.