State v. Kyle , 2012 Ohio 456 ( 2012 )

[Cite as State v. Kyle, 2012-Ohio-456.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 25974
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
SHERMAN KYLE, III COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR 08 10 3401
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: February 8, 2012
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Sherman Kyle III, appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court
of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Kyle was convicted of numerous offenses and sentenced accordingly. He
appealed his conviction and sentence, and this Court affirmed. State v. Kyle, 9th Dist. No.
24655, 2010-Ohio-4456.
{¶3} On February 2, 2011, Kyle filed a petition for post-conviction relief which he
captioned as a “petition to vacate or set aside judgment of conviction or sentence.” The State
moved to dismiss the petition as untimely. On February 28, 2011, the trial court dismissed the
petition. Kyle did not appeal that order.
{¶4} On April 28, 2011, Kyle filed a “motion to set aside judgment and sentence” in
which he argued that trial court error resulted in a violation of his constitutional rights. The State
2
opposed the motion, and Kyle replied. On May 13, 2011, the trial court denied the motion. Kyle
appealed, raising two assignments of error for review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN AND REVERSIBLE ERROR
PURSUANT TO R.C. 2945.75(A)(2) AND STATE VS. PELFREY BECAUSE
THE JURY VERDICT FORMS DID NOT INCLUDE THE OFFENSE NOR
ANY AGGRAVATING ELEMENTS[,] WHICH IS A DIRECT VIOLATION
OF THE 5TH, 6TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENTS.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN AND REVERSIBLE ERROR
PURSUANT TO CRIM.R. 52(B) AND STATE VS. GRIGG BY WAY OF
DEFECTIVE REASONABLE DOUBT INSTRUCTIONS BEING GIVEN TO
THE JURY, WHICH IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE 5TH, 6TH, AND
14TH AMENDMENTS.
{¶5} Kyle argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to set aside his
judgment of conviction and sentence. This Court disagrees.
{¶6} It is well settled that “[w]here a criminal defendant, subsequent to his or her direct
appeal, files a motion seeking vacation or correction of his or her sentence on the basis that his or
her constitutional rights have been violated, such a motion is a petition for postconviction relief
as defined in R.C. 2953.21.” State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St. 3d 158, at syllabus (1997). R.C.
2953.21(A)(1)(a) provides that “[a]ny 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.” Kyle failed to raise the instant issues in his direct appeal and he alleged a
3
violation of his constitutional rights in his most recent motion. Accordingly, we must construe
his motion as a petition for post-conviction relief. Moreover, because he filed an earlier petition
for post-conviction relief, we must construe the instant petition as a successive one.
{¶7} This Court recently wrote: “Successive petitions for post-conviction relief are
governed by R.C. 2953.23. Under R.C. 2953.23(A) a trial court is forbidden from entertaining a
second or successive petition for post-conviction relief unless it meets two conditions. First, the
petitioner must show either that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon
which he relies in the petition, or that the United States Supreme Court has, since his last
petition, recognized a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to the petitioner.
Second, the petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence that a reasonable factfinder
would not have found him guilty but for constitutional error at trial. See R.C. 2953.23(A)(1).”
State v. Williams, 9th Dist. No. 25879, 2011-Ohio-6141, at ¶ 15.
{¶8} In this case, Kyle’s successive petition did not explain how he was unavoidably
prevented from discovering the facts upon which his petition was based. The verdict forms and
jury instructions were apparent on the face of the record since before he filed his direct appeal.
Neither did he claim or identify a new retroactive right that has been recognized by the United
States Supreme Court since he filed his first petition. Accordingly, the trial court lacked the
statutory authority to consider the merits of his successive petition and properly denied him the
relief requested. Kyle’s assignments of error are overruled.
III.
{¶9} Kyle’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
4
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
WHITMORE, P. J.
DICKINSON, J.
CONCUR
APPEARANCES:
SHERMAN KYLE III, pro se, Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.