State v. Fields , 2011 Ohio 5513 ( 2011 )

[Cite as State v. Fields, 2011-Ohio-5513.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE STATE OF OHIO, JUDGES:
Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee, Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs-
Case No. CT2011-0030
GERALD D. FIELDS,
Defendant-Appellant. OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. CR2009-0166
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 26, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
ROBERT L. SMITH GERALD FIELDS, PRO SE
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR MARION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
27 North Fifth Street Post Office Box 57
Zanesville, Ohio 43701 Marion, Ohio 43302
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0030 2
Wise, P. J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Gerald D. Fields appeals the June 29, 2011, denial
of his Petition for post-conviction relief entered in the Muskingum County Court of
Common Pleas.
{¶ 2} Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of Ohio.
{¶ 3} This case comes to us on the accelerated calendar. App.R. 11.1, which
governs accelerated calendar cases, provides, in pertinent part:
{¶ 4} “(E) Determination and judgment on appeal. The appeal will be
determined as provided by App.R. 11.1. It shall be sufficient compliance with App.R.
12(A) for the statement of the reason for the court’s decision as to each error to be in
brief and conclusionary form. The decision may be by judgment entry in which case it
will not be published in any form.”
{¶ 5} This appeal shall be considered in accordance with the aforementioned
rule.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶ 6} On August 6, 2009, an informant working for the Zanesville Police
Department purchased crack cocaine from Appellant in a Bob Evans parking lot in
Zanesville, Ohio. Prior to the purchase, police officers observed Appellant leave his
residence and drive to the scene in a 1990 Cadillac. Immediately after the transaction,
officers conducted a traffic stop and recovered the cash used by the informant to
purchase the drugs from Appellant.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0030 3
{¶ 7} The Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted appellant on 13 drug
offenses, with the August 6, 2009, controlled buy constituting the first two counts of the
indictment.
{¶ 8} On September 28 and 29, 2009, Appellant filed a number of motions,
including a motion for continuance.
{¶ 9} On October 6, 2009, the trial court held an oral hearing on all pending
motions. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion for continuance.
{¶ 10} On October 13, 2009, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to Counts One
and Two of the indictment, trafficking in crack cocaine and permitting drug abuse, and to
the forfeiture specification attached to the first count. The state nolled the remaining 11
counts of the indictment. Appellant was sentenced to 8 years incarceration for
trafficking in cocaine and 12 months in prison for permitting drug abuse, to be served
consecutively.
{¶ 11} Appellant appealed to this Court, raising eight assignments of error.
{¶ 12} By Opinion dated December 15, 2010, this Court affirmed Appellant’s
conviction.
{¶ 13} On April 19, 2011, Appellant filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief.
{¶ 14} By Judgment Entry filed April 21, 2011, the trial court denied Appellant’s
motion.
{¶ 15} On June 21, 2011, Appellant filed a Petition to Vacate or Set Aside
Conviction or Sentence.
{¶ 16} On June 23, 2011, Appellant filed a Motion to Amend Petition for Post
Conviction.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0030 4
{¶ 17} By separate Entries dates June 29, 2011, the trial court denied Appellant’s
motions.
{¶ 18} Appellant now appeals, assigning the following error for review:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 19} “I. TRIAL COURT ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION BY DENYING
EVIDENT [SIC] HEARING.”
I.
{¶ 20} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant claims that the trial court erred
and abused its discretion in not holding an evidentiary hearing on his petition for post-
conviction relief. We disagree.
{¶ 21} R.C. §2953.21(A) states, in part, as follows:
{¶ 22} “(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 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. The petitioner may file a supporting affidavit and other documentary evidence in
support of the claim for relief.”
{¶ 23} Pursuant to R.C. §2953.21(A)(2), a petition for post-conviction relief “…
shall be filed no later than one hundred eighty 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 or adjudication or, if the direct appeal involves a sentence of death, the date
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0030 5
on which the trial transcript is filed in the Supreme Court. 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 one hundred eighty days after the expiration of the time for filing the
appeal.”
{¶ 24} “A petition for postconviction 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. Perry, 5th Dist. No. 2010CA00185, 2011–Ohio–274, ¶ 12, citing State v. Murphy
(Dec. 26, 2000), Franklin App. No. 00AP–233. “Although designed to address claimed
constitutional violations, the post-conviction relief process is a civil collateral attack on a
criminal judgment, not an appeal of that judgment.” Id., citing State v. Calhoun (1999),
86 Ohio St.3d 279, 281, 714 N.E.2d 905, 1999–Ohio–102; State v. Steffen (1994), 70
Ohio St.3d 399, 410, 693 N.E.2d 67, 1994–Ohio–111. “A petition for post-conviction
relief, thus, does not provide a petitioner a second opportunity to litigate his or her
conviction, nor is the petitioner automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the
petition.” Id., citing State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107, 110, 413 N.E.2d 819;
State v. Lewis, Stark App. No. 2007CA00358, 2008–Ohio–3113 at ¶ 8. A court need not
issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when it dismisses an untimely petition or
successive petitions for postconviction relief. State ex rel. Kimbrough v. Greene, 98
Ohio St.3d 116, 2002–Ohio–7042, 781 N.E.2d 155; State ex rel. Fuller v. Sutula (1999),
86 Ohio St.3d 301, 714 N.E.2d 924.
{¶ 25} As an initial matter, we must examine the trial court's ability to review the
Appellant's petition for post-conviction relief.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0030 6
{¶ 26} In the instant case, Appellant filed a direct appeal from his sentence and
conviction on December 18, 2009. The trial transcript in this matter was filed on March
8, 2010. Appellant’s Petition to Vacate or Set Aside Judgment of Conviction or
Sentence was not filed until June 21, 2011, well past the time set forth in R.C.
§2953.21(A)(2).
{¶ 27} As Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief was filed beyond the time
requirement in R.C. §2953.21(A)(2), we must look to R.C. §2953.23(A)(1) to determine
if the trial court could consider Appellant's petition for post-conviction relief.
{¶ 28} The statute provides, in pertinent part:
{¶ 29} “ * * * [A] court may not entertain a petition filed after the expiration of the
period prescribed in division (A) of that section or a second petition or successive
petitions for similar relief on behalf of a petitioner unless division (A)(1) or (2) of this
section applies:
{¶ 30} “(1) Both of the following apply:
{¶ 31} “(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.
{¶ 32} “(b) The petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
constitutional error at trial, no reasonable fact finder would have found the petitioner
guilty of the offense of which the petitioner was convicted or, if the claim challenges a
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0030 7
sentence of death that, but for constitutional error at the sentencing hearing, no
reasonable fact finder would have found the petitioner eligible for the death sentence.”
{¶ 33} Appellant, in his petition, claims “newly discovered evidence”. A review of
such Petition reveals that Appellant’s claims are those of innocence, ineffective counsel
and police entrapment. Appellant attached statements from three people who claim to
be witnesses and his own affidavit to his petition.
{¶ 34} Upon review, we find that Appellant has failed to allege, in his petition or
this appeal, any facts in support of why any of the information included in his petition
was not known to him or otherwise available to him prior to his entering pleas of guilty in
this case.
{¶ 35} Accordingly, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Appellant’s petition without an evidentiary hearing.
{¶ 36} Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum
County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By: Wise, P. J.
Edwards, J., and
Delaney, J., concur.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0030 8
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
v. : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
GERALD D. FIELDS :
:
Defendant-Appellant : Case No. CT2011-0030
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to Appellant.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES