State v. Trimble , 2022 Ohio 1906 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Trimble, 2022-Ohio-1906.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2022-P-0004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Civil Appeal from the
-v- Court of Common Pleas
JAMES E. TRIMBLE,
Trial Court No. 2005 CR 00022
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: June 6, 2022
Judgment: Affirmed
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela J. Holder, Assistant
Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Kathryn L. Sandford, Assistant State Public
Defender, Office of the Ohio Public Defender, 250 East Broad Street, Suite 1400,
Columbus, OH 43215 (For Defendant-Appellant).
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
{¶1} Appellant, James E. Trimble (“Mr. Trimble”), appeals the judgment of the
Portage County Court of Common Pleas denying his successive petition for
postconviction relief. Mr. Trimble sought the vacation of his death sentence on
constitutional grounds.
{¶2} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Trimble asserts an “as-applied”
constitutional challenge to Ohio’s death penalty statute based on the Supreme Court of
the United States’ decision in Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d
504 (2016). In his second assignment of error, Mr. Trimble asserts a “facial” constitutional
challenge based on Hurst.
{¶3} After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we find that the trial
court did not err in denying Mr. Trimble’s successive petition for postconviction relief.
First, since Mr. Trimble did not establish the requirements for a successive petition under
R.C. 2953.23, the trial court was not permitted to entertain it. Second, even if Mr.
Trimble’s successive petition had been properly before the trial court, he failed to
establish substantive grounds for relief. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that Ohio’s
death penalty statute satisfies the Sixth Amendment and is distinguishable from the law
at issue in Hurst. In addition, the parties’ characterization of Mr. Trimble’s death sentence
as a “recommendation” during his trial proceedings was an accurate statement of Ohio
law. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas.
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶4} In 2005, Mr. Trimble shot and killed his girlfriend, Renee Bauer, and her
seven-year-old son at their home in Brimfield Township. Mr. Trimble fled the scene on
foot. Later that evening, he broke into the nearby residence of Sarah Positano, a 22-
year-old college student, and took her hostage. After a police SWAT team surrounded
the residence, Mr. Trimble shot and killed Ms. Positano and exchanged gunfire with the
SWAT team. The next morning, the SWAT team entered the residence and arrested Mr.
Trimble.
{¶5} Following a jury trial in the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Mr.
Trimble was found guilty of three counts aggravated murder and accompanying
specifications, three counts of kidnapping, one count aggravated burglary, and two counts
2
Case No. 2022-P-0004
of felonious assault. Following a mitigation hearing, the jury recommended that Mr.
Trimble be sentenced to death. Following its independent review, the trial court
sentenced Mr. Trimble accordingly. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed Mr. Trimble’s
convictions and death sentence on direct appeal in State v. Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297,
2009-Ohio-2961, 911 N.E.2d 242, cert. denied, Trimble v. Ohio, 558 U.S. 1055, 130 S.Ct.
752, 175 L.Ed.2d 526 (2009).
{¶6} While his direct appeal was pending, Mr. Trimble filed a petition for
postconviction relief, raising 11 claims for relief. The trial court dismissed Mr. Trimble’s
petition, and this court affirmed in State v. Trimble, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2007-P-0098,
2008-Ohio-6409, appeal not accepted, 122 Ohio St.3d 1502, 2009-Ohio-4233, 912
N.E.2d 107.
{¶7} In 2010, Mr. Trimble filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal
court, raising six grounds for relief. See Trimble v. Bobby, N.D.Ohio No. 5:10-CV-00149,
2013 WL 1155594, *4 (Mar. 20, 2013). The district court conditionally granted Mr. Trimble
relief on his claim alleging juror bias, set aside his death sentences, and ordered a new
capital sentencing hearing. Id. at *30. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the district court’s grant of habeas relief in Trimble v. Bobby, 804 F.3d 767 (6th
Cir.2015), cert. denied, Trimble v. Jenkins, 137 S.Ct. 41, 196 L.Ed.2d 49 (2016).
{¶8} In 2013, Mr. Trimble filed a motion for leave to move for a new trial pursuant
to Crim.R. 33(B). Mr. Trimble contended new evidence demonstrated he did not
purposely cause Ms. Positano’s death. The trial court twice overruled Mr. Trimble’s
motion for leave, and this court twice reversed and remanded. See State v. Trimble,
2015-Ohio-942, 30 N.E.3d 222, ¶ 26 (11th Dist.); State v. Trimble, 11th Dist. Portage No.
3
Case No. 2022-P-0004
2015-P-0038, 2016-Ohio-1307, ¶ 23. The trial court subsequently overruled Mr. Trimble’s
motion for a new trial following an evidentiary hearing. Mr. Trimble appealed the trial
court’s denial of his motion for discovery, and this court affirmed. See State v. Trimble,
11th Dist. Portage No. 2017-P-0062, 2018-Ohio-3444, ¶ 31-32, appeal not accepted, 154
Ohio St.3d 1464, 2018-Ohio-5209, 114 N.E.3d 215.
{¶9} In 2016, Mr. Trimble filed a “successor [sic] petition to vacate or set aside
death sentence pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 2953.23.” Mr. Trimble argued that
Ohio’s death penalty statute is unconstitutional pursuant to the Supreme Court of the
United States’ then-recent decision in Hurst, supra. The state filed a brief in opposition.
{¶10} Upon Mr. Trimble’s request, the trial court held his successive petition in
abeyance pending a decision from the Supreme Court of Ohio in a similar case. In State
v. Mason, 153 Ohio St.3d 476, 2018-Ohio-1462, 108 N.E.3d 56, the Supreme Court of
Ohio held that Ohio’s death penalty statute satisfies the Sixth Amendment and is
distinguishable from the law at issue in Hurst. Id. at ¶ 21. The Supreme Court of the
United States subsequently denied certiorari. See Mason v. Ohio, 139 S.Ct. 456, 202
L.Ed.2d 351 (2018).
{¶11} In 2019, the trial court filed a judgment entry denying Mr. Trimble’s petition
based on Mason. In 2022, Mr. Trimble filed a motion for a delayed appeal, contending
that his counsel never received notice of the trial court’s judgment entry. We determined
that Mr. Trimble’s appeal was timely because no notation of service appeared on the
docket pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶12} Mr. Trimble raises the following two assignments of error:
4
Case No. 2022-P-0004
{¶13} “[1.] The trial court erred when it denied Trimble’s motion for a new
mitigation trial because Trimble proved Ohio’s death penalty statute is unconstitutional as
applied to his case in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution, Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016).
{¶14} “[2.] The trial court erred by denying Trimble’s motion for a new mitigation
trial because Ohio’s death penalty scheme is unconstitutional under the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, based on Hurst.”
{¶15} We consider Mr. Trimble’s assignments of error together and out of order.
Standard of Review
{¶16} We review a trial court’s decision denying a petition for postconviction relief
for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, 860
N.E.2d 77, ¶ 58. An abuse of discretion is the trial court’s “‘failure to exercise sound,
reasonable, and legal decision-making.’” State v. Beechler, 2d Dist. Clark No. 09-CA-54,
2010-Ohio-1900, ¶ 62, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 11 (8th Ed.2004).1
Successive Petition
{¶17} Mr. Trimble’s assigned errors focus on the substantive merits of his
constitutional arguments. However, a preliminary issue is whether the trial court was
permitted to entertain his successive petition for postconviction relief.
{¶18} R.C. 2953.21 provides, in relevant part, 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
1. In his appellate brief, Mr. Trimble refers to his 2016 filing in the trial court as a “motion for a new mitigation
trial.” This is not an accurate characterization of his 2016 filing based on its caption or its contents.
5
Case No. 2022-P-0004
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.”
R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a). “Before granting a hearing on a petition * * *, the court shall
determine whether there are substantive grounds for relief.” R.C. 2953.21(D).
{¶19} However, R.C. 2953.23 provides, in relevant part, that a court “may not
entertain” a successive petition unless “(a) * * * the petitioner shows that * * * subsequent
* * * 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” and “(b) [t]he petitioner shows by clear
and convincing evidence that, * * * but for constitutional error at the sentencing hearing,
no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner eligible for the death sentence.”
(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a)-(b).
{¶20} In his successive petition, Mr. Trimble contended that his death sentence
was “void or voidable” pursuant to Hurst. Although Hurst was released after Mr. Trimble
filed his first petition, this court has held that Hurst does not apply retroactively to cases
on collateral review. See State v. Lorraine, 2018-Ohio-3325, 120 N.E.3d 33, ¶ 38 (11th
Dist.). In addition, Mr. Trimble did not address or purport to establish the second
requirement for a successive petition. Since R.C. 2953.23 did not permit the trial court to
entertain Mr. Trimble’s successive petition, the trial court did not err in denying it.
{¶21} Even if Mr. Trimble’s successive petition had been properly before the trial
court, however, Mr. Trimble failed to establish substantive grounds for relief, as explained
below.
6
Case No. 2022-P-0004
Facial Challenge
{¶22} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Trimble contends that Ohio’s death
penalty scheme is facially unconstitutional pursuant to Hurst. A statute is unconstitutional
on its face when “there exists no set of circumstances under which the statute would be
valid.” Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44, 2005-Ohio-5334, 836 N.E.2d 1165, ¶ 37.
{¶23} The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a
criminal defendant the right to a trial “by an impartial jury.” In conjunction with the Due
Process Clause, that right requires a jury to find every element of a crime proven beyond
a reasonable doubt. Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 103, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186
L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). Facts that “expose the defendant to a greater punishment than that
authorized by the jury’s guilty verdict” are elements of a crime that must be found by a
jury. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 494, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435(2000). In capital trials, an aggravating factor is the functional equivalent of an element
of a more serious offense and therefore must be found by a jury. Ring v. Arizona, 536
U.S. 584, 609, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002).
{¶24} In Hurst, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Florida’s capital
sentencing scheme was unconstitutional. Id. at 94. Under Florida’s scheme, an advisory
jury issued a nonbinding sentencing recommendation of life or death to the trial court,
which included no specific findings of fact regarding the existence of aggravating
circumstances. Id. at 99. The Supreme Court explained that the Sixth Amendment
requires a jury’s verdict to serve as the basis for a death sentence, not a judge’s fact-
finding. Id. at 102. The court stated that the Sixth Amendment “requires a jury, not a
7
Case No. 2022-P-0004
judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a death sentence. A jury’s mere
recommendation is not enough.” Id. at 94.
{¶25} Mr. Trimble argues that Ohio’s capital sentencing scheme suffers from the
same defects that rendered Florida’s system unconstitutional in Hurst. He urges this court
to adopt a broad reading of Hurst, i.e., that the Sixth Amendment requires the jury to make
specific factual findings regarding the sufficiency of the aggravating circumstances to
impose the death penalty rather than simply issue a recommendation.
{¶26} The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected these arguments in Mason, supra.
First, material differences exist between the two schemes. Unlike in the former Florida
death-penalty scheme, an Ohio jury must make findings in the guilt phase that one or
more aggravating circumstances existed beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at ¶ 32. That
fact-finding was a “key distinction” for the Supreme Court of Ohio, as it established the
aggravating circumstances that the trial court must weigh against mitigating
circumstances. Id. at ¶ 37. Second, an Ohio trial court cannot find additional aggravating
circumstances independent of the jury or increase the sentence based on its own finding.
Id. at ¶ 39-40. Finally, the Mason court rejected the argument that Hurst requires a jury
to exclusively decide whether to impose death. Id. at ¶ 42. Instead, the court concluded
that Ohio’s scheme “safeguards offenders from wayward juries” when the trial court
reweighs the aggravating circumstances found by the jury against the mitigating
circumstances. Id. at ¶ 40.
{¶27} While Mr. Trimble disagrees with this reasoning, the Supreme Court of Ohio
has repeatedly reaffirmed Mason and upheld Ohio’s capital punishment scheme as
constitutional. See State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359, 2018-Ohio-1562, 114 N.E.3d
8
Case No. 2022-P-0004
1092, ¶ 228; State ex rel. O’Malley v. Collier-Williams, 153 Ohio St.3d 553, 2018-Ohio-
3154, 108 N.E.3d 1082, ¶ 20; State v. Goff, 154 Ohio St.3d 218, 2018-Ohio-3763, 113
N.E.3d 490, ¶ 36; State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85, 2018-Ohio-5205, 123 N.E.3d 955,
¶ 279; State v. Grate, 164 Ohio St.3d 9, 2020-Ohio-5584, 172 N.E.3d 8, ¶ 151-152; State
v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187, 2020-Ohio-6700, 172 N.E.3d 841, ¶ 185-186.
{¶28} Accordingly, Mr. Trimble did not establish a facial constitutional challenge.
{¶29} Mr. Trimble’s second assignment of error is without merit.
As-Applied Challenge
{¶30} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Trimble contends that Ohio’s death-
penalty scheme, as applied to his trial proceedings, violates the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. A statute may be challenged on the
ground that it is unconstitutional “as applied to a particular set of facts.” Harrold, supra,
at ¶ 38.
{¶31} Mr. Trimble argues that comments made by the trial court, the prosecutor,
and his defense counsel unconstitutionally diminished the jury’s sense of responsibility
by characterizing its death sentence as a recommendation. Mr. Trimble relies on the
same arguments made in his facial challenge - that under Hurst, “a mere recommendation
is not enough” - to argue that those comments were improper.
{¶32} We note that Mr. Trimble asserted only a facial challenge in his successive
petition. He asserts his as-applied challenge for the first time on appeal. The Supreme
Court of Ohio has held that the “[f]ailure to raise at the trial court level the issue of the
constitutionality of a statute or its application, which issue is apparent at the time of trial,
constitutes a waiver of such issue and a deviation from this state’s orderly procedure, and
9
Case No. 2022-P-0004
therefore need not be heard for the first time on appeal.” State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d
120, 489 N.E.2d 277 (1986), syllabus.
{¶33} Even if the issue was properly before us, however, Mr. Trimble’s position
lacks substantive merit. The First District recently rejected this argument in State v.
Lynch, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210234, 2021-Ohio-4094. As the court aptly explained,
such comments to a jury accurately characterize the role of the jury under Ohio law. Id.
at ¶ 29. Ohio juries make the necessary factual findings, weigh the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances, and recommend a sentence. Id. The defendant cannot receive
the death penalty without the trial court separately weighing the aggravating
circumstances as determined by the jury against mitigating factors. The jury’s
recommendation of death is just that - a recommendation that the trial court may accept
or reject, based on its independent weighing of the factors. Id.
{¶34} Accordingly, Mr. Trimble did not establish an as-applied constitutional
challenge.
{¶35} Mr. Trimble’s first assignment of error is without merit.
{¶36} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Portage County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed.
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J.,
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
concur.
10
Case No. 2022-P-0004