State v. Benson

2025 Ohio 345

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 3, 2025
• Docket: 24CA000026
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Benson, 2025-Ohio-345.]

COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES: : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. : Hon. Andrew J. King, J. -vs- : : MARVIN BENSON, : Case No. 24CA000026 : Defendant - Appellant : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 18-CR-98

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 3, 2025

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

NO APPEARANCE MARVIN BENSON, Pro Se #756728 BeCI 68518 Bannock Road St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950 Guernsey County, Case No. 24CA000026 2

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Marvin Benson, appeals the judgment entry of the trial court

denying appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief. The appellee is the State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

{¶2} The facts and case as set forth in the previous appeal in this matter are as

follows:

On Friday, April 13, 2018, six-year-old W.M. arrived at school, and

hugged his principal. W.M. participated in an event called COSI on Wheels,

a field trip brought to the school building with presentations and activities

for students. Photographs taken by the school principal show W.M. enjoying

participation in the activities with his peers.

On Monday, April 16, 2018, at approximately 3:00 p.m., paramedics

were dispatched to a home occupied by appellant, his girlfriend Tiera

Mounts, appellant's three children, and Tiera's two children, one of whom

was W.M. Upon arrival, the emergency medical technician (EMT) found a

child, later identified as W.M., unresponsive on the second floor of the

house. W.M. was not breathing, had no pulse, and his arm was not flexible,

leading the EMT to believe the child had been dead for longer than an hour.

Patrolman Jarod Eubanks of the Cambridge Police Department

arrived on the scene. He noted the child's body was “battered and bruised.”

Tr. 284. Based on his observations of W.M.'s body, he requested a detective

to the scene. Detective Greg Clark of the Cambridge Police Department

arrived on the scene. Guernsey County, Case No. 24CA000026 3

Det. Clark asked appellant and Tiera Mounts to come with him to the

police station, which they agreed to do. Before interviewing appellant, Det.

Clark read him his Miranda rights. During the first part of the interview,

appellant told police W.M. had “episodes” where he would fall down as if his

legs were weak, and the bruises on W.M.'s body were from “episodes”

where he beats himself. Appellant stated Tiera disciplined W.M. by “busting

his ass and like that,” by making him do wall squats, and when W.M. “keeps

fighting” with Tiera, she'll call her stepmom to come and get him. Appellant

said Sunday night, the night before W.M. died, W.M. was “acting up real

bad.” They made W.M. do wall squats, but he would just stand and lean

against the wall. After they got him to do the wall squats, he kept dropping

to the ground and would sit there, like he didn't want to listen.

Appellant stated on Monday morning, April 16, W.M. did not want to

get up and put his shoes on. There was vomit in W.M.'s bedroom from the

night, although appellant claimed they did not hear him vomiting during the

night. When W.M. kept falling, appellant put him up against the wall to do

wall squats. When appellant was trying to leave to take the other children

to school, W.M. put his coat on “half-assed.” Appellant told police the “worst

thing I did this morning was kicked him in his butt.” Appellant admitted

kicking W.M. out the front door of the house, where W.M. hit his head on

the stoop. Although Det. Clark had noted a gash with fresh blood on W.M.'s

head, Appellant claimed there was a scratch, but no blood on W.M.'s head.

Appellant stated W.M. went back to bed that morning, and at one point when Guernsey County, Case No. 24CA000026 4

he woke up to use the restroom, appellant gave him cough syrup. When

Tiera arrived home from work in the afternoon, appellant told her W.M. was

acting “like a butt” plus W.M. had vomit to clean up in his room. Tiera went

upstairs to W.M.'s room, and shortly thereafter Appellant heard her

screaming.

After a break, Det. Clark resumed his interview with Appellant.

Appellant stated he met Tiera a year ago, and as to W.M., she was “beating

his ass.” He stated sometimes Tiera went pretty far and had to call her mom.

Appellant stated after he “busted his butt” one time, W.M. started listening.

Tiera would often say she could not handle W.M. and wanted to get rid of

him.

Appellant told Det. Clark on the night before W.M.'s death, Tiera

wasn't dealing with W.M., and told appellant to handle it. Appellant stated

he put W.M. on the wall to do wall squats, and kicked W.M.'s feet out from

under him. Appellant tossed W.M., and he hit a space heater or radiator.

Appellant stated when he fell and hit his head on the radiator, W.M. laid

there “with that defiant look that he does.” Appellant picked him up and said,

“Get your ass back on the wall.” W.M. got back on the wall, but kept spitting

and trying to hit Appellant. Tiera told appellant to hit him back, and appellant

kicked W.M. in the stomach. W.M. fell over. Appellant tossed W.M. a second

time, and kicked W.M. again while he was laying on the ground. Appellant

admitted several times to kicking W.M. twice on Sunday night and once on

Monday morning, and to throwing W.M. across the room twice. Appellant Guernsey County, Case No. 24CA000026 5

also told police Tiera threw W.M. once on Sunday night, and kicked his feet

out from under him. When W.M. kept “acting up”, Tiera told appellant to put

him in the shower.

Dr. Sandra Schubert, the Guernsey County Coroner, arrived at the

house to view the body of W.M. She noted multiple marks all over W.M.'s

body – his head, neck, torso, arms, legs, and back. From looking at the

injuries to W.M.'s body, she was unable to immediately determine the cause

of death, although initially she believed the trauma to his face may have led

to a concussion, causing his death. She determined W.M. died laying in his

bed, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and noon on April 16, 2018. She further

noted four areas of vomit in W.M.'s bedroom, which were analyzed to help

determine time of death.

W.M.’s body was sent to Licking County, where Dr. Charles Lee

performed an autopsy. Dr. Lee determined the injury which caused the

death was a ruptured bowel, which led to peritonitis. The doctor determined

the ruptured bowel was caused by blunt force trauma to the abdomen by

something of substance inflicted hard and fast, such as a punch or a kick.

According to Dr. Lee, the injury would need to be inflicted when the boy's

spine was stable in order for the bowel to crush against the spine, causing

it to rupture, and most likely W.M. was in a stable position against a wall or

the floor. He estimated the injury occurred 8-24 hours prior to W.M.'s death.

W.M.'s brain was swollen, and he had twice the amount of diphenhydramine Guernsey County, Case No. 24CA000026 6

in his system as is the therapeutic dose for an adult. W.M. was

malnourished, weighing only 35 pounds at the time of his death.

Appellant was indicted by the Guernsey County Grand Jury on two

counts of murder, two counts of involuntary manslaughter, one count of

felonious assault, and one count of endangering children. The case

proceeded to jury trial in the Guernsey County Common Pleas Court.

They found appellant guilty of all six charges. The court found all

charges merged into one, and the State elected to have appellant

sentenced on felony murder, in which the underlying offense was

endangering children. The trial court sentenced appellant to a term of

incarceration of fifteen years to life.

Appellant then appealed. Pursuant to an Opinion filed in State v.

Benson, Guernsey App. No. 19CA00009, 2020-Ohio-1258, on March 23,

2020 from which the statement of facts are taken, this Court affirmed the

judgment of the trial court. Appellant filed an appeal in the Supreme Court

of Ohio.

On June 16, 2020, appellant filed a Petition to Vacate or Set Aside

Judgment of Conviction and Sentence pursuant to R.C. 2953.21. Upon the

motion of appellant's counsel, the trial court, as memorialized in an Entry

filed on June 17, 2020, stayed the proceedings “until attorney visits resume

at the correctional institution where Defendant is confined, and/or the

jurisdictional appeal in Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2020-0709 is

concluded, whichever occurs later.” Guernsey County, Case No. 24CA000026 7

Appellant, on January 10, 2022, filed a pro se Motion for Access to

Public Records Pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(8). Appellant, in his motion,

alleged that he needed such records to defend himself in the in the pending

Petition to Vacate or Set Aside Judgment of Conviction and Sentence

pursuant to R.C. 2953.21 and also to defend himself in a civil action brought

against him stemming from his criminal case.

The trial court, via an Entry filed on January 20, 2022, denied such

motion stating, in relevant part, as follows: “The Court, on June 17, 2020,

upon Motion of Defendant's Attorney, Dennis C. Belli, stayed proceedings

on Defendant's Petition for Post-Conviction Relief until attorney visits

resume at the correctional institution where Defendant is confined, and/or

the jurisdictional appeal in Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2020-0709 is

concluded, whichever occurs later. Therefore, Defendant's Motion for

Access to Public Records is hereby DENIED.”

State v. Benson, 2022-Ohio-2126 (5th Dist.).

{¶3} Appellant timely appealed the trial court’s decision, and this Court affirmed

the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s Motion for Access to Public Records on June 21,

2022.

{¶4} On November 3, 2023, Appellant filed a Motion to Lift Stay and Reactivate

Petition 2953.21, requesting the trial court to lift the stay on the case put in place due to

COVID and move forward pro se with his petition for post-conviction relief.

{¶5} On November 28, 2023, the trial court granted Appellant’s motion. Guernsey County, Case No. 24CA000026 8

{¶6} On December 18, 2023, Appellant filed a motion to request leave to file an

amended petition.

{¶7} On February 16, 2024, the trial court granted Appellant’s motion.

{¶8} On April 15, 2024, the trial court denied Appellant’s Motion to Request

Litigation, granted the Appellant’s Motion to Amend Post Conviction Relief Petition and

set the matter for a non-oral administrative review hearing for May 28, 2024.

{¶9} Appellant’s petition for post-conviction release raised ten claims:

Claim I – a defense attorney’s failure to raise and competently litigate

a potentially meritorious ground for suppression of evidence violates a

defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to the effective

assistance of counsel.

Claim II – Appellant was denied his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth

Amendment right to “present as a ‘summoning up of a juror (voir dire)’ had

taken place where a juror was able to be untruthful. This was without

Appellant’s knowledge until after his appeal had been exhausted when he

received his trial transcripts.”

Claim III – Appellant’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment were

violated under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, Kyles v. Whitney, 514 U.S.

419, and Strickler v. Green, 527 U.S. 263. When the State “withholds

evidence that is favorable to the defense and material to the defendant’s

guilt or punishment.” Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73, 75. Appellant’s attorney

requested discovery concerning Tiera Rockaway. The prosecution said Ms. Guernsey County, Case No. 24CA000026 9

Rockaway was not part of appellant’s case. Tiera Rockaway was under

investigation and information relating to that case was confidential.

Claim IV – Appellant’s rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth

Amendment were violated as to his Confrontation Clause and Compulsory

process.”

Claim V – Appellant’s rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth

Amendment were violated by an illegal arrest and coerced statements.

Claim VI – Appellant’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process

was violated under the Cumulative Error Doctrine.

Claim VII – “Prosecutorial Misconduct, Constitutional rights were

violated.”

Claim VIII – “Lack of Sufficient Evidence, Constitutional Rights were

Claim IX – “Delay in indictment of a co-defendant a mere year later,

Constitutional rights were violated.”

Claim X – “Void judgment, Constitutional rights were violated.”

{¶10} On May 14, 2024, Appellee filed a Response to Amended Post Conviction

Relief Petition.

{¶11} On May 20, 2024, Appellant filed a Motion to Defendant’s Contra Response

to Prosecutor’s Response to Petitioner Marvin Benson’s Amended Petition for Post-

Conviction Relief.

{¶12} On August 12, 2024, the trial court denied Appellant’s amended petition for

post-conviction relief. Guernsey County, Case No. 24CA000026 10

{¶13} Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and herein raises the following sole

Assignment of Error:

{¶14} “I. TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED IT’S [sic] DISCRETION,

DENYING PETITION 2953.21. FAILING TO REVIEW EACH CLAIM INDEPENDENTLY

AND NOT HOLDING A [sic] EVIDENTIARY HEARING. [sic] WHERE SUFFICIENT

OPERATIVE FACTS WERE SUBMITTED, TO PUT THE CONVICTION IN SUCH A

DIFFERENT LIGHT AS TO UNDERMIND THE CONFIDENCE IN THE VERDICT. THE

STATE’S ENTIRE THEORY, PRESENTED EVIDENCE TO THE GRAND JURY AND

TRIAL DISCOVERY ALLEGED BENSON TO HAVE SOLELY COMMITTED CRIMES

AGAINST THE DECEDENT AND NO ONE ELSE WAS AROUND IN CASE AT BAR.

EVEN THE JURY BEING THE SOLE FACT FINDERS OF THE CASE, WAS EXCLUDED

FROM EXAMINING OR HEARING OF ANY KIND OF EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER

PERTAINING TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THERE BEING ANY TYPE OF CO-

DEFENDANT. PROSECUTION MADE THIS VERY CLEAR AT TRAIL [sic] FOR THE

JURY, THIS CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE ANYONE ELSE BUT TWO PEOPLE BENSON

AND THE DEFENDANT. SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDING ANY CULPABILITY OF TIERA

ROCKAWAY AKA [M.] AS A CO-DEFENDANT IN THE CASE, TO THE JURY. YET,

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE PRESENTED A COMPLETE [sic]

DIFFERENT THEORY TO THE GRAND JURY A MERE YEAR LATER INDICATING

TIERA ROCKAWAY AKA [M.] ON A 33 COUNT INDICTMENT FOR MURDER OF THE

VERY SAME DECEDENT, CASE NUMBER 19-CR-280, AND A NEGOTIATED PLEA

WAS REACHED AS BEING A CO-DEFENDANT IN CASE AT BAR, CASE NUMBER 21-

CR-25. THE NEGLIGENCE BY THE STATE, SHOWS THAT BENSON’S DUE Guernsey County, Case No. 24CA000026 11

PROCESS HAS BEEN VIOLATED. WHERE ITS [sic] MANDATED THAT ‘ALL

PERSONS BE TREATED EQUALLY UNDER LAW’. [sic] THIS ALONE DOUBT’S [sic]

THE CONVICTION AGAINST BENSON, WHERE HIS CONVICTION/CASE HAS NO

CO-DEFENDANT.”

I.

{¶15} In Appellant’s sole assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court

abused its discretion denying Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief. We disagree.

ANALYSIS

{¶16} The doctrine of res judicata has been utilized to justify the dismissal of post-

conviction proceedings where the issue in question was never raised on direct appeal

from the original judgment and sentence. State v. Nichols, 11 Ohio St.3d 40, 42 (1984).

We find the doctrine of res judicata bars these issues.

{¶17} “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars the

defendant from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from that

judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that the defendant raised or

could have raised at trial which resulted in that judgment of conviction or on appeal from

that judgment.” State v. Snyder, 2016-Ohio-832 (5th Dist.), ¶26; quoting State v. Perry, 10

Ohio St.2d 175 (1967). Further, “[i]t is well-settled that, ‘pursuant to res judicata, a

defendant cannot raise an issue in a [petition] for post-conviction relief if he or she could

have raised the issue on direct appeal.’ ” State v. Elmore, 2005-Ohio-5940 (5th Dist.), ¶21;

quoting State v. Reynolds, 1997-Ohio-304.

{¶18} Furthermore, the doctrine of res judicata also “ ‘prevents repeated attacks

on a final judgment and applies to issues that were or might have been previously Guernsey County, Case No. 24CA000026 12

litigated.’ ” State v. Russell, 2006-Ohio-6221 (10th Dist.), ¶21; State v. Lindsay, 2019-

Ohio-5283 (5th Dist.), ¶¶21-22. The Ohio Supreme Court explained: “[r]es judicata bars

the litigation of all claims that either were or might have been litigated in a first lawsuit.”

State ex rel. Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2003-Ohio-5643.

{¶19} Appellant’s first claim in his Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is

for ineffective assistance of trial counsel by failing to completely litigate a potentially

meritorious ground for suppression challenging the admissibility of his custodial

statements. Appellant also assigned this as an error in his direct appeal, which was

overruled by this Court on March 23, 2020. State v. Benson, 2020-Ohio-1258 (5th Dist.),

¶¶36-46. Since Appellant already litigated this claim on direct appeal, it is barred by res

judicata.

{¶20} Appellant’s third claim was not brought on direct appeal. He requested

information on Ms. Rockaway during trial. Therefore, he had an obligation to bring to the

trial court’s attention when the State did not provide the information. He then had the

opportunity to raise on direct appeal his trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in dealing with this

issue at trial, or challenge the trial court’s ruling. Accordingly, res judicata bars these

claims from being raised in a petition for post-conviction relief.

{¶21} Appellant’s second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims were not brought on

direct appeal. These claims were all known or could have been known at the time of trial

and on direct appeal. Accordingly, res judicata bars these claims from being raised in a

petition for post-conviction relief.

{¶22} Finally, Appellant summarily argues his seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth

claims in one sentence for each claim. Appellant fails to argue any operative facts in Guernsey County, Case No. 24CA000026 13

support of these claims. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s petition

for post-conviction relief on these claims.

{¶23} Accordingly, Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

CONCLUSION

{¶24} Based upon the foregoing, the decision of the Guernsey County Court of

Common Pleas is, hereby, affirmed.

By: Baldwin, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

King, J. concur.