State v. Jackson

157 N.E.3d 240

2020 Ohio 4015

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Cleveland R. JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 1-19-63

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Allen County.

Date of Decision: August 10, 2020

Dale A. Baich, Kelle A. Andrews, and Charlotte G. Merrill, for Appellant.

Jana E. Emerick, Lima, for Appellee.

PRESTON, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Cleveland R. Jackson ("Jackson"), appeals the September 26, 2019 judgment of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas rejecting his petition for post-conviction relief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

{¶2} This matter originated with Jackson's 2002 conviction and death sentence for the murder of Leneshia R. Williams ("Williams"). On January 3, 2002, Jackson and his half-brother, Jeronique Cunningham, robbed a group of eight people at gunpoint and then fired their weapons into the group. Three-year-old Jayla Grant ("Grant") and 17-year-old Williams were shot and died as a result of their injuries.

{¶3} On January 10, 2002, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Jackson on nine counts: Counts One and Two of aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(B) ; Count Three of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) ; and Counts Four through Nine of attempted aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and R.C. 2903.01(B). (Doc. No. 1). Counts One and Two both contained death-penalty specifications under R.C. 2929.04(A)(5) and R.C. 2929.04(A)(7). (Id. ). Counts One through Nine also contained firearm specifications under R.C. 2941.145(A). (Id. ).

{¶4} A jury trial commenced on July 16, 2002. (Doc. No. 313). On July 25, 2002, the jury found Jackson guilty on all counts. (Id. ). Additionally, the jury found that the State proved all of the specifications, including the death-penalty specifications, beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. ). On July 26, 2002, the trial court filed its judgment entry of conviction. (Id. ).

{¶5} A mitigation hearing was held on July 29, 2002. (Doc. No. 344). For the purposes of sentencing, the trial court instructed the jury to consider only whether each aggravated murder was part of a course of conduct involving the purposeful killing of or attempt to kill two or more persons under R.C. 2929.04(A)(5), thereby removing the aggravating factor under R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) from the jury's consideration. (Id. ). On July 30, 2002, the trial court returned its recommendation that Jackson be sentenced to death for Counts One and Two. (Id. ).

{¶6} At the sentencing hearing on August 5, 2002, the trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Jackson to death for the aggravated murders of Grant and Williams, Counts One and Two, respectively. (Doc. Nos. 344, 345). The trial court also imposed prison terms with respect to Counts Three through Nine and the related firearm specification in Count Three. (Doc. No. 345). That same day, the trial court filed its sentencing opinion and its judgment entry of sentence. (Doc. Nos. 344, 345).

{¶7} Jackson perfected a direct appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of Ohio. In State v. Jackson , 107 Ohio St.3d 53, 2005-Ohio-5981, 836 N.E.2d 1173, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed Jackson's convictions and sentences on all non-capital offenses.¹ Id. at ¶ 23. With respect to the capital offenses, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed Jackson's convictions for the aggravated murders of Grant and Williams and affirmed the death sentence for the aggravated murder of Williams. Id. at ¶ 23, 25. However, the court found that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Jackson's request to inform prospective jurors that one of the murder victims was a young child. Id. at ¶ 24. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Ohio vacated Jackson's death sentence for the murder of Grant and remanded the cause to the trial court for the purpose of resentencing on that count only. Id. Accordingly, on January 8, 2007, the trial court held a resentencing hearing and sentenced Jackson to life imprisonment without parole with respect to the murder of Grant. (Doc. No. 443). Jackson filed an application to reopen his direct appeal, which the Supreme Court of Ohio denied. State v. Jackson , 110 Ohio St.3d 1435, 2006-Ohio-3862, 852 N.E.2d 185. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Jackson's petition for writ of certiorari. Jackson v. Ohio , 548 U.S. 912, 126 S.Ct. 2940, 165 L.Ed.2d 964 (2006).

{¶8} On August 13, 2003, while his direct appeal was pending, Jackson filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied. (Doc. Nos. 410, 426). This court affirmed the trial court's decision on appeal. State v. Jackson , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-04-31, 2004-Ohio-5350, 2004 WL 2260095, ¶ 25. The Supreme Court of Ohio declined further review. State v. Jackson , 108 Ohio St.3d 1476, 2006-Ohio-665, 842 N.E.2d 1055.

{¶9} On June 26, 2007, Jackson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio raising twenty claims.

Jackson v. Houk , N.D.Ohio No. 3:07CV0400, 2008 WL 1946790 (May 1, 2008). The district court denied Jackson's claims and declined to grant a certificate of appealability on any of the claims. Id. at *82. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. Jackson v. Houk , 687 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2012). On February 19, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States declined Jackson's petition for writ of certiorari. Jackson v. Houk , 568 U.S. 1164, 133 S.Ct. 1243, 185 L.Ed.2d 190.

{¶10} On September 4, 2019, Jackson filed a second petition for postconviction relief in the trial court. (Doc. No. 456). In his petition for postconviction relief, Jackson argued that his death sentence is void or voidable because he is intellectually disabled and ineligible for execution. (Id. ). In his petition for postconviction relief, Jackson acknowledged that he was filing outside the timeframe prescribed by R.C. 2953.21(A) and that it was his second petition for postconviction relief. (Id. ). Nevertheless, Jackson argued that his petition met the exceptions outlined in R.C. 2953.23, and he argued that the trial court should therefore consider the merits of his claim. (Id. ). On September 25, 2019, the State filed its response and motion to dismiss Jackson's petition for postconviction relief. (Doc. No. 457). On September 26, 2019, the trial court filed its judgment entry denying Jackson's petition for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. No. 458).

{¶11} On October 11, 2019, Jackson filed his notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 461). He raises one assignment of error for our review.

Assignment of Error

The trial court improperly failed to grant jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23 and review Appellant Jackson's claims and evidence proving that he is intellectually disabled and ineligible for execution. (Dkt. 458.) It improperly found that R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) does not apply, improperly applied res judicata, and failed to afford Jackson due process in the consideration of his claims and evidence. This assignment of error relates to Issues for Review 1-4.

{¶12} In his assignment of error, Jackson argues that the trial court erred in denying his petition for postconviction relief without a hearing on the grounds that it was both time barred and barred by res judicata.

{¶13} " R.C. 2953.21 governs petitions for post-conviction relief." State v. Wine , 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-15-07, 2015-Ohio-4726, 2015 WL 7188491, ¶ 10, citing State v. Kinstle , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-12-32, 2013-Ohio-850, 2013 WL 937747, ¶ 10. The statute sets forth who may petition for postconviction relief:

Any 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, 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.

R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a). The statute sets forth the time requirements for filing a petition for postconviction relief and provides, in relevant part,

a petition under division (A)(1) of this section shall 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 or adjudication or, if the direct appeal involves a sentence of death, the date 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 three hundred sixty-five days after the expiration of the time for filing the appeal.

R.C. 2953.21(A)(2). " ‘A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an untimely or successive petition for postconviction relief unless the petitioner establishes that one of the exceptions in R.C. 2953.23(A) applies.’ " State v. Cunningham , 3d Dist. Allen, 2016-Ohio-3106, 65 N.E.3d 307, ¶ 13, quoting State v. Chavis , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-557, 2015-Ohio-5549, 2015 WL 9594813, ¶ 14, citing State v. Campbell , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-109, 2012-Ohio-5195, 2012 WL 5462825, ¶ 9. "Therefore, if the petition has been untimely filed, the trial court cannot consider the substantive merits of the petition and must summarily dismiss it without addressing the merits of the petition." State v. Unsworth , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-14-1238, 2015-Ohio-3197, 2015 WL 4720354, ¶ 16, citing State v. Flower, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 14 MA 148, 2015-Ohio-2335, 2015 WL 3673537, ¶ 12 and State v. Rodriguez , 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-14-075, 2015-Ohio-562, 2015 WL 641205, ¶ 6.

{¶14} However, as indicated, an exception to the...