State v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 15 October 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2009–T–0050.,2009–T–0050. |
| Citation | 941 N.E.2d 1221,190 Ohio App.3d 319 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee,v.JACKSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecuting Attorney, and LuWayne Annos, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Randall L. Porter, Assistant Public Defender; and John P. Parker, for appellant.COLLEEN MARY O'TOOLE, Judge.
[Ohio App.3d 320] {¶ 1} Appellant, Nathaniel Jackson, appeals from the May 4, 2009 judgment entry of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, denying his motion for new trial and/or sentencing and denying as moot his motion to disqualify the prosecutor's office.
{¶ 2} The following procedural history and factual background were taken from a prior appeal by appellant with this court, State v. Jackson, 11th Dist. No. 2008–T–0024, 2010-Ohio-1270, 2010 WL 1176516.
{¶ 3} Appellant was charged with various crimes, including aggravated murder, for the shooting death of Robert Fingerhut. At the time of his death in 2001, Fingerhut was residing with his former wife, Donna Roberts. Roberts was also charged with murder for her role in Fingerhut's death. During the months prior to the incident, appellant and Roberts exchanged letters while he was serving a prison term for an unrelated offense. In the letters, Roberts and appellant discussed a plan for appellant to murder Fingerhut so that Roberts could collect the proceeds from Fingerhut's life-insurance policies.
[Ohio App.3d 321] {¶ 4} In November 2002, appellant was found guilty of two counts of aggravated murder, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of aggravated robbery. Under both of the aggravated-murder counts, the jury recommended the death penalty. After independently weighing the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating facts, the trial court concluded that the death penalty was appropriate. In addition, the trial court imposed separate sentences on the charges of aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and the merged firearm specifications. In January 2003, appellant filed a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which affirmed appellant's convictions and the imposition of the death penalty. State v. Jackson, 107 Ohio St.3d 300, 2006-Ohio-1, 839 N.E.2d 362.
{¶ 5} In 2004, appellant filed his original petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21. Thereafter, appellant submitted an amended petition for postconviction relief. Under the amended petition, he asserted 15 separate claims for relief. In the majority of those claims, appellant argued that he had been denied effective assistance of trial counsel during the penalty phase of his trial. Four of appellant's remaining claims raised issues of possible discrimination in the manner in which the grand-jury proceedings and the petit trial had been conducted. Finally, appellant also challenged the constitutionality of Ohio's execution procedure and the statutory procedure for postconviction relief.
{¶ 6} In responding to appellant's petition, appellee, the state of Ohio, moved to dismiss each of the claims without a hearing on the basis that appellant had not made a prima facie showing that his constitutional rights were violated during his trial. In June 2004, the trial court rendered a 33–page judgment entry in which it dismissed each of the claims raised by appellant. As to all of the claims, the trial court held that appellant had failed to establish substantive grounds to warrant postconviction relief. Also, the trial court held that many of the claims were barred under the doctrine of res judicata because the issues either were, or could have been, raised in his direct appeal from his conviction.
{¶ 7} Appellant appealed the trial court's judgment entry denying his petition for postconviction relief to this court, in which we affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v. Jackson, 11th Dist. No. 2004–T–0089, 2006-Ohio-2651, 2006 WL 1459757. Appellant appealed this court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which declined jurisdiction. State v. Jackson, 111 Ohio St.3d 1469, 2006-Ohio-5625, 855 N.E.2d 1258.
{¶ 8} On August 2, 2006, the Supreme Court of Ohio released its decision in Roberts's direct appeal. State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71, 2006-Ohio-3665, 850 N.E.2d 1168. The trial court in the instant matter presided over the underlying trials of both appellant and Roberts. Between the penalty-phase hearing of Roberts's trial and the sentencing hearing, the trial court engaged in ex parte [Ohio App.3d 322] communications with an assistant county prosecutor about the sentencing opinion in Roberts's case. Id. at ¶ 155. The trial court used the assistant prosecutor to draft the sentencing entry but failed to include the defense counsel in the process. Id. In Roberts, the Supreme Court of Ohio vacated the death sentence and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to personally review and evaluate the appropriateness of the death penalty. Id. at ¶ 164. The Supreme Court also observed that the ex parte collaboration between the trial court and the prosecution to prepare the court's sentencing opinion was “wholly inconsistent” with the ethical constraints of Canon 3(B)(7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and DR 7–110(B). Id. at ¶ 161.
{¶ 9} Presumably based on the Roberts decision, appellant filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the trial court's judgment entry denying his petition for postconviction relief. The state filed an answer, arguing that the motion lacked merit and should be denied. In response, appellant filed a reply brief in support of his motion for relief from judgment.
{¶ 10} In October 2006, attorney Randall L. Porter, counsel for appellant, filed an application and affidavit seeking the disqualification of the trial court in the instant matter, citing a statement by the trial court at a hearing in Roberts that it had similarly relied on the prosecuting attorney to prepare paperwork for it in other criminal cases. See In re Disqualification of Stuard, 113 Ohio St.3d 1236, 2006-Ohio-7233, 863 N.E.2d 636, ¶ 1, 3. The trial court responded to the affidavit, acknowledging that it held similar ex parte communications with the prosecuting attorney's office in both Roberts and Jackson before sentencing each of them to death. Id. at ¶ 4. Upon consideration, the Chief Justice declined to disqualify the trial court from further participation in this matter. Id. at ¶ 10.
{¶ 11} The trial court denied appellant's Civ.R. 60(B) motion. It was from that judgment that appellant filed an appeal with this court, case No. 2008–T–0024, asserting that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for relief from judgment and an evidentiary hearing. This court found no error and affirmed the judgment of the trial court on March 26, 2010. State v. Jackson, 11th Dist. No. 2008–T–0024, 2010-Ohio-1270, 2010 WL 1176516 (O'Toole, J., dissenting).1
[Ohio App.3d 323] {¶ 12} While that appeal was pending, on February 29, 2008, appellant filed a motion for new trial and/or sentencing. The state filed a memorandum in opposition on April 10, 2008.
{¶ 13} On May 12, 2008, appellant filed a second application with the Supreme Court of Ohio to disqualify Judge Stuard, which was denied by the Chief Justice on August 25, 2008.
{¶ 14} Pursuant to its May 4, 2009 judgment entry, the trial court denied appellant's motion for new trial and/or sentencing and denied as moot appellant's motion to disqualify the prosecutor's office.2 It is from that judgment that appellant filed the present appeal, asserting the following assignments of error for our review: 3
{¶ 15} “[1.] The trial court erred when it overruled Mr. Jackson's motion for a new sentencing hearing.
{¶ 16}
{¶ 17} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred by overruling his motion for a new sentencing hearing. We agree.
{¶ 18} In Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71, 2006-Ohio-3665, 850 N.E.2d 1168, at ¶ 156–164, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated the following:
{¶ 19} “R.C. 2929.03 governs the imposition of sentences for aggravated murder. R.C. 2929.03(F) clearly contemplates that the trial court itself will draft the death-sentence opinion: ‘ The court (* * *) when it imposes sentence of death, shall state in a separate opinion its specific findings as to the existence of any of the mitigating factors (* * *), the aggravating circumstances the offender was found guilty of committing, and the reasons why the aggravating circumstances the offender was found guilty of committing were sufficient to outweigh the mitigating factors (* * *).’ (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 20} “* * *
{¶ 21} “* * *
[Ohio App.3d 324] {¶ 22} “In this case, our confidence in the trial court's sentencing opinion is undermined by the fact that the trial judge directly involved the prosecutor in preparing the sentencing opinion and did so on an ex parte basis. The trial judge is charged by statute with the sole responsibility of personally preparing the opinion setting forth the assessment and weight of the evidence, the aggravating circumstances of the murder, and any relevant mitigating factors prior to determining what penalty should be imposed. The fact that the trial judge provided his notes to the prosecutor to guide the prosecutor in drafting the sentencing opinion does not change the result. The various drafts of the opinion that ultimately imposed death on Roberts involved the assistance of the prosecutor.
{¶ 23} “The trial court's delegation of any degree of responsibility in this sentencing opinion does not comply with R.C. 2929.03(F). Nor does it comport with our firm belief that the consideration and imposition of death are the most solemn of all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Jackson
-
State v. Lorraine
... ... Davie , 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2007-T-0069, 2007-Ohio-6940, 2007 WL 4485845, 8. Appellant argues this court subsequently ruled otherwise, with respect to the propriety of seeking sentencing relief in a motion for new trial, in State v. Jackson , 190 Ohio App.3d 319, 2010-Ohio-5054, 941 N.E.2d 1221 (11th Dist.). { 25} In Jackson , the defendant filed a "Motion for New Trial and/or Sentencing Hearing." The trial court denied this motion because the motion for new trial was untimely under Crim.R. 33(B) and because there is no provision ... ...
- State v. Jackson
-
State v. Pickens
... ... 2953.21(C) in adopting the state's findings of fact and conclusions of law, because Ahmed was not denied meaningful appellate review. Id. at 7173.{ 15} The Eleventh Appellate District in its October 2010 decision in State v. Jackson, 190 Ohio App.3d 319, 2010-Ohio-5054, 941 N.E.2d 1221 (11th Dist.), ordered resentencing for Roberts's partner in the murder of her husband, because the same trial court had employed the same procedure in drafting Jackson's death-sentence opinion that it had employed in drafting Roberts's opinion ... ...