State v. Horner , 2021 Ohio 1312 ( 2021 )

[Cite as State v. Horner, 2021-Ohio-1312.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO : Hon. W, Scott Gwin. P.J.
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
:
-vs- :
: Case No. 2020 CA 00080
KENNETH HORNER :
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Licking County
Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
20CR00049
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 13, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
PAULA SAWYERS KENNETH HORNER PRO SE
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Inmate # 776247
20 South Second Street Belmont Correctional Institution
Fourth Floor P.O. Box 540
Newark, OH 43055 St. Clairsville, OH 43950
[Cite as State v. Horner, 2021-Ohio-1312.]
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant Kenneth Horner appeals the November 17, 2020 judgment entry
of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for post-conviction
relief. Appellee is the State of Ohio.
Facts & Procedural History
{¶2} On June 8, 2020, appellant pled guilty to the following charges: aggravated
possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) in violation of R.C.
2925.11(A)(C)(1)(b), a felony of the third degree; aggravated trafficking in drugs
(methamphetamine), a violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)(C)(1)(c), a felony of the third
degree; and a forfeiture specification. The trial court merged Counts 1 and 2 for purposes
of sentencing, and appellee elected to have appellant sentenced on Count 1. Appellant
was sentenced to a two-year prison term.
{¶3} Appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief on August 3, 2020.
Appellant argued his right to due process under the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions was
being violated by his continued incarceration, and his continued incarceration constitutes
cruel and unusual punishment. Appellant alleged the following in his petition: he is
confined within three feet of other inmates, there is no social distancing in prison, he is at
high risk of complications if he contracts COVID-19, and the prison has active COVID-19
cases. Appellant included his own affidavit in the petition.
{¶4} In his prayer for relief, appellant requests “an order for his immediate
release” and a new trial.
{¶5} The trial court held a non-oral hearing on appellant’s petition on September
4, 2020.
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00080 3
{¶6} The trial court issued a judgment entry denying appellant’s petition without
a hearing on November 17, 2020. The trial court stated a motion for judicial release is a
“more appropriate action than a petition for post-conviction relief and the preferred avenue
when requesting relief due to the COVID-19 pandemic.” Further, the trial court stated the
only support appellant provides is his own self-serving affidavit, which is insufficient to
trigger a right to hearing or justify a granting of the petition.
{¶7} Appellant appeals the November 17, 2020 judgment entry of the Licking
County Court of Common Pleas and assigns the following as error:
{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT FOLLOWING THE MANDATES
OF 2953.21-.23, BY SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE PETITION WITHOUT AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND NOT REVIEWING THE CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS THE ALLEGED FACTS, IF TRUE, WOULD MAKE THE
SENTENCE VOID UNDER THE CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION 6TH, 8TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENTS, AND OHIO CONSTITUTION,
ART. I, SECTIONS 5,6,9,10, AND 16, AND O.R.C. SECTIONS 2945.71-.73, BY NOT
REFERENCING WHERE IN THE RECORD THE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN LITIGATED,
AND BY NOT ISSUING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WHEREIN
THOSE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD, THE
SUMMARY DISMISSAL IS CONTRARY TO LAW.
{¶9} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT HOLDING A JUDICIAL RELEASE
HEARING, AND CONSIDERING THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND
COMPELLING REASONS TO CONSIDER JUDICIAL RELEASE, THE OHIO SUPREME
COURT [STATED] THE FOLLOWING IN LICHTENWATLER V. DEWINE, 2020-OHIO-
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00080 4
1465, “I HOPE THAT PETITIONER AND OTHERS IN OHIO DO NOT SEE TODAY’S
DECISION AS THE JUDICIARY’S THROWING UP ITS HANDS AND CLAIMING THAT
THERE IS NOTHING THAT IT CAN DO * * * OHIO’S TRIAL COURTS HAVE THE
POWER TO LIBERALLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY GRANT APPROPRIATE REQUESTS
FOR JUDICIAL RELEASE.”
I.
{¶10} In the first portion of his assignment of error, appellant contends the trial
court committed error by not issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law. We disagree.
{¶11} The findings of fact and conclusions of law required by R.C. 2953.21(H)
should be explicit enough to give the appellate court a clear understanding of the basis
of the trial court’s decision and enable it to determine the grounds on which the trial court
reached its decision. State v. Jacks, 5th Dist. Licking No. 99 CA 113, 2000 WL 329740(Feb. 29, 2000), citing State v. Lester, 41 Ohio St.2d 51, 322 N.E.2d 656 (1975). The
purpose of requiring the trial court to include findings of fact and conclusions of law in its
judgment entry is to sufficiently apprise both the petitioner and the potential appellate
court of the grounds for its decision. State v. Staats, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2015CA00207,
2016-Ohio-2921. In its judgment entry, the trial court issued several pages of findings of
fact and conclusions of law, and sufficiently apprised both appellant and this Court of the
grounds for its decision.
{¶12} In the balance of his argument, appellant contends the trial court committed
error in denying his petition for post-conviction relief and in denying his request for an
evidentiary hearing. We disagree.
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00080 5
{¶13} R.C. 2953.21 affords a petitioner post-conviction relief “only if the court can
find that there was such a denial or infringement on the rights of the prisoner as to render
the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the United States
Constitution.” State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967).
{¶14} The appropriate standard for reviewing a trial court’s decision to dismiss a
petition for post-conviction relief, without an evidentiary hearing, involves a mixed
question of law and fact. State v. Durr, 5th Dist. Richland No. 18CA78, 2019-Ohio-807.
This Court must apply a manifest weight standard in reviewing a trial court’s findings on
factual issues underlying the substantive grounds for relief, but we must review the trial
court’s legal conclusions de novo. Id. Under R.C. 2953.21, a petitioner seeking post-
conviction relief is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing. State v. Calhoun,
86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999). The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized,
“[i]n post-conviction cases, 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
{¶15} We first note that the primary relief appellant seeks is his immediate release
from custody because his continued incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic
violates his constitutional rights. When a prisoner seeks immediate or speedier release
from incarceration, his or her sole remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Preiser
v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); State v. Turner, 11th
Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-066, 2020-Ohio-4796. Because a post-conviction petition is not
the appropriate method through which to seek immediate or quicker release from custody,
the trial court did not commit error in denying appellant’s petition without a hearing.
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00080 6
{¶16} Additionally, to the extent appellant does not request immediate release but
instead challenges the conditions of his confinement, a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
1983 is the appropriate avenue for appellant to challenge the conditions of his
confinement. Waites v. Gansheimer, 110 Ohio St.3d 250, 2006-Ohio-852 N.E.2d 1204;
State ex rel. Peoples v. Anderson, 73 Ohio St.3d 559, 653 N.E.2d 371 (1995); Aultman
v. Shoop, Case S.D. Ohio No. 2209-cv-3304, 2020 WL 3869478 (claims regarding the
constitutionality of custody in prison because of risks posed by COVID-19 are principally
claims regarding conditions of confinement); State v. Walters, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
71906, 1997 WL 723355 (Nov. 20, 1997) (post-conviction petition is not the proper device
for raising a challenge to incarceration without adequate medical attention; the
appropriate remedy would be to bring an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983).
{¶17} Appellant cites Justice Donnelly’s concurring opinion in State ex rel.
Lichtenwalter v. DeWine and State v. Watkins in support of his argument that
incarceration in prison is cruel and unusual punishment due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
{¶18} However, neither of these cases support appellant’s argument. In
Lichtenwalter, the Ohio Supreme Court granted the State of Ohio’s motion to dismiss the
petitioner’s complaint for mandamus and/or habeas corpus. 158 Ohio St.3d 1476, 2020-
Ohio-1465, 143 N.E.2d 507. In a concurring opinion, Justice Donnelly stated the
Supreme Court did not have the authority in a mandamus proceeding to control the
executive branch’s discretion to exercise their power to reduce prison populations due to
overcrowding emergencies or conditional release of prisoners who are ill. Id. Justice
Donnelly encouraged the Ohio executive branch to take steps to prevent spread of
COVID-19 in prisons and noted that the trial court has the discretion to grant appropriate
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00080 7
requests for judicial release that meet the statutory requirements. Id. Even under Justice
Donnelly’s concurrence, a petition for post-conviction relief is not the proper device for
raising a challenge to appellant’s incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic.
{¶19} In State v. Watkins, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 20AP-313, 2020-Ohio-5203, the
defendant filed an emergency motion to withdraw guilty plea or temporary relief from
judgment. He alleged that, because of underlying medical conditions, he was at a
heightened risk for severe COVID complications. The trial court temporarily released the
defendant from prison pending the ruling on the motion to withdraw plea. The State of
Ohio appealed the trial court’s decision to temporarily release the defendant. The Tenth
District reversed the trial court’s decision, citing the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in
Lichtenwalter. Id.{¶20} The Tenth District held that, under Ohio law, once an offender is delivered
to the institution where their sentence is to be served, “the sentence has been executed
and the trial court loses jurisdiction to modify the sentence, absent a clerical error or void
sentence.” Id. The Tenth District also cited the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding that the
sole source of judicial authority for modifying a sentence of an incarcerated felon is judicial
release pursuant to R.C. 2929.20. Id., citing State v. Hitchcock, 157 Ohio St.3d 215,
2019-Ohio-3246, 134 N.E.3d 164. The Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction on
Watkins’ appeal of the Tenth District’s decision. State v. Watkins, 161 Ohio St.3d 1450,
2021-Ohio-534,163 N.E.3d 589.
{¶21} The rationale utilized by the Tenth District in Watkins does not support
appellant’s argument. Appellant was sentenced to two years in prison on Count 1, a
felony of the third degree. R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(b), provides the court, “shall impose a
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00080 8
prison term that shall be one of the following * * * for a felony of the third degree * * * a
definite term of nine, twelve, eighteen, twenty-four, thirty, or thirty-six months.” When
appellant was conveyed to prison, his sentence had been executed and the trial court did
not have authority to modify his sentence unless his sentence was void or there was a
clerical error.
{¶22} Finally, appellant presents no evidence outside the record other than his
own affidavit to support his claim. A defendant advancing a post-conviction petition is
required to present evidence which meets a minimum level of cogency to support their
claims. State v. Scott, 5th Dist. Licking No. 15 CA 81, 15 CA 82, 2016-Ohio-3488. As
self-serving testimony, the trial court could give little or no weight to his affidavit. State v.
Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999). Further, a petitioner’s self-serving
affidavit generally does not meet his or her required minimum level of cogency. State v.
Scott, 5th Dist. Licking No. 15 CA 81, 15 CA 82, 2016-Ohio-3488, citing State v. Kapper,
5 Ohio St.3d 36, 448 N.E.2d 823 (1983).
{¶23} The affidavit, documentary evidence, files, and the records do not
demonstrate appellant set forth sufficient operative facts to establish substantive grounds
for relief. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied appellant’s petition for post-
conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. Appellant’s first assignment of
error is overruled.
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00080 9
II.
{¶24} In his second assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court
committed error in not holding a hearing on his motion for judicial release and in denying
the motion.
{¶25} We find this issue is not properly before this Court. The trial court issued a
judgment entry denying appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief on November 17,
2020. Appellant filed an appeal of the entry on December 16, 2020. Subsequently, he
filed a motion for judicial release on December 31, 2020, which the trial court denied on
January 7, 2021. Appellant did not file a notice of appeal of the January 7, 2021 judgment
entry.
{¶26} Additionally, even if appellant had properly filed a notice of appeal of the
January 7, 2021 judgment entry denying his motion for judicial release, we lack
jurisdiction to review his second assignment of error.
{¶27} As this Court has previously held, “it is well-established that the denial of a
motion for judicial release is not a final appealable order.” State v. Howard, 5th Dist.
Richland No. 2017 CA 0035, 2017-Ohio-7554; State v. Bennett, 5th Dist. Muskingum No.
CT2005-0009, 2006-Ohio-2812. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to address appellant’s
second assignment of error.
{¶28} Based on the foregoing, appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.
This Court is without jurisdiction to address appellant’s second assignment of error.
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00080 10
{¶29} The November 17, 2020 judgment entry of the Licking County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Hoffman, J., and
Wise, John, J., concur