[Cite as State v. Chandler, 2018-Ohio-3560.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- : : Case Nos. 2018CA00046 : 2018CA00056 KENYAN CHANDLER : : : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2016CR2058A
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 4, 2018
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
JOHN D. FERRERO, JR. KENYAN CHANDLER, PRO SE STARK CO. PROSECUTOR Inmate No. A693-139 KRISTINE W. BEARD Belmont Correctional Institution 110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 510 P.O. Box 540 Canton, OH 44702-1413 St. Clairsville, OH 43950 Stark County, Case Nos. 2018CA00046, 2018CA00056 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Appellant Kenyan Chandler appeals from the April 18, 2018 Judgment Entry
of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas overruling his petition for post-conviction
relief.1 Appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} The following facts are taken in part from our decision in State v. Chandler,
5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00053, 2017-Ohio-9279, appeal not allowed, 152 Ohio St.3d
1466, 2018-Ohio-1795, 97 N.E.3d 501.
{¶3} Appellant was charged by indictment with one count of aggravated robbery
pursuant to R.C. 2911.01(A), accompanied by a firearm specification pursuant to R.C.
2941.145. The following evidence is adduced from the record of appellant's jury trial.
Evidence at trial: Investigation leads to appellant
{¶4} Brandie McGowan testified that she was working at the Gameroom, a
skilled game center on October 14, 2016, when two men came in the front door with a
gun. McGowan testified that one of the men made the people at the Gameroom stay
where they were while the other man took her into the office where he shattered the
register and took the money. McGowan then testified that the man made her open the
safe and he took all the money from the safe. McGowan also testified that a woman who
had come into the Gameroom earlier stood out in her mind because the woman had told
her she needed help playing the games and the woman received multiple phone calls.
McGowan further testified that the Gameroom had a video surveillance system and the
1 This appeal is consolidated from two case numbers: 2018CA00046 and 2018CA00056. Stark County, Case Nos. 2018CA00046, 2018CA00056 3
video showed that the men who had come into the Gameroom were wearing gloves and
their faces were covered. Upon cross-examination, McGowan testified that she did not
recognize appellant and she did not recall seeing him on October 14, 2016.
{¶5} Officer Chad Kanouff of the Jackson Police Department testified that he was
dispatched to the Gameroom on October 14, 2016 in regards to a robbery. Officer Kanouff
testified that he met Brandie McGowan and she gave him the name of Shania
Summerville as someone he should talk to about his investigation. Officer Kanouff then
made contact with Summerville. Summerville denied both verbally and in a written
statement that she was involved in the crime or that she was familiar with the robbers.
Officer Kanouff asked if he could see the call history on her cell phone. Summerville
agreed and Officer Kanouff documented the numbers on his police report. One of the
recent numbers was 330–356–xxxx1 a call Summerville received at approximate 10:08
P.M. that evening. Summerville advised the officers that the cell phone number belonged
to her boyfriend, Marshawn Oliver. Officer Kanouff did not process the scene for DNA or
fingerprints because the men were wearing masks and gloves and no scientific evidence
was likely to be found at the scene.
{¶6} The next day, Detective Joshua Escola began his investigation. Detective
Escola retrieved and reviewed the videos from the Gameroom. Escola observed that
there was a significant height and weight difference between the two male perpetrators.
Detective Escola also observed that they were wearing dark clothing, masks and gloves,
which indicated that they were experienced and made it hard to collect any scientific
evidence. Stark County, Case Nos. 2018CA00046, 2018CA00056 4
{¶7} As part of the investigation, Detective Escola typed the cell phone number
from Summerville's cell phone call history into the Facebook site. Escola found a
Facebook account registered to appellant with the same cell phone number. Appellant's
Facebook account also showed that Summerville was listed as being one of his friends.
Detective Escola also discovered that Marshawn Oliver is actually Summerville's family
member and not her boyfriend. As a result, Detective Escola attempted to contact
Summerville. Initially Detective Escola was unable to contact Summerville because she
had given the officers a fake telephone number. Detective Escola then contacted Amber
Walters. Walters advised Escola that she knew both Summerville and Appellant. She
provided Escola with Summerville's number and verified that 330–356–xxxx was the cell
phone number for appellant. At trial, Walters testified that on October 18, 2017, four days
after the robbery, appellant called Walters and told her the cell phone number was no
longer good. Walters also testified that appellant was on a GPS monitor on the night of
the robbery and that the monitor had not been charged. Therefore, appellant's
whereabouts were unsupervised when the robbery occurred.
{¶8} Escola contacted Summerville who agreed to come to the Jackson Police
Department for a second interview. Initially, Summerville denied knowing anything about
the robbery. However, after being confronted with the cell phone and Facebook
information, Summerville admitted that she was the lookout for the two men at the
Gameroom the night of the robbery. Summerville also advised Detective Escola that the
man holding the gun in the video was her boyfriend: appellant. Summerville also identified
Taronn Jeffries as the other male accomplice. Detective Escola further testified that
Jeffries and appellant's height and weight were consistent with the men in the Gameroom Stark County, Case Nos. 2018CA00046, 2018CA00056 5
video. Detective Escola placed Summerville under arrest for complicity to commit
aggravated robbery.
{¶9} Summerville was subsequently indicted for a felony five theft, in exchange
for her testimony against appellant. At trial, Summerville testified that in October of 2016
she and her four-year-old son were living with appellant. She stated that on October 14,
2016, appellant asked her to scope out the Gameroom. She stated that when she arrived
at the Gameroom the owner walked her around and taught her how to play the games.
While she was there she received two calls from appellant asking her who was there
including how many men and how many women were present.
{¶10} At approximately 10:15, she saw appellant and Jeffries come through the
front door of the Gameroom. She admitted that she saw Jeffries take the owner upstairs,
while appellant stayed at the front door holding the patrons at gunpoint. After the men left,
she stayed seated until the police arrived. She testified that she told the officers that she
did not know anything about the robbery, and gave them a fake name and number. She
testified she did agree to let the officers look at the call history on her phone. She then
left the Gameroom, picked up her son and went home.
{¶11} Summerville testified that when appellant and Jeffries got to the house they
were wearing different clothes. Taronn asked her what she told the police. A couple of
days later she got a call from Detective Escola and agreed to meet with him at the Jackson
Police Department. Summerville testified that initially she did not tell the truth but later
admitted knowing about the robbery and gave Escola the names of the other two men.
She stated that because of her confession she was arrested and charged with complicity
to commit aggravated robbery. Stark County, Case Nos. 2018CA00046, 2018CA00056 6
{¶12} At the time of trial, Summerville testified that she originally testified to the
Grand Jury that she did not know that appellant and Jeffries were involved with the
robbery at the Gameroom until after they got home. She also admitted she told the Grand
Jury that she could not recognize them by their voices. Summerville further stated that
she gave the police the wrong phone number in order to hide from them.
Conviction and sentence
{¶13} After the presentation of evidence, appellant was found guilty as charged in
the indictment. Appellant was sentenced to serve a 6–year prison sentence for the
aggravated robbery and a 3–year mandatory consecutive sentence for the firearm
specification.
Defense trial counsel files motion for new trial: Alibi witness
{¶14} On February 13, 2017, via counsel, appellant filed a Motion for New Trial
pursuant to Crim.R. 33(A)(6). Attached to the motion is affidavit signed by Charlotte Long
stating that appellant was with her “continuously” at her house from 8:00 p.m. “until after
12:00 a.m.” on the date of the robbery; she saw appellant use his cell phone during this
time; and she left town before the trial and didn’t realize she was needed as an alibi
witness. Appellee responded with a motion in opposition. On May 18, 2017, the trial
court overruled the motion for new trial because appellant had knowledge of the alibi at
the time of trial and had knowledge of the witness “for an extended period of time,” thus
the purported alibi was not newly-discovered evidence. Stark County, Case Nos. 2018CA00046, 2018CA00056 7
Direct appeal: convictions and sentence affirmed
{¶15} Our decision affirming appellant’s conviction and sentence was announced
on December 26, 2017. State v. Chandler, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00053, 2017-Ohio-
9279, appeal not allowed, 152 Ohio St.3d 1466, 2018-Ohio-1795, 97 N.E.3d 501.
Petition for post-conviction relief: Same alibi witness
{¶16} On March 20, 2018, appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief
asserting that trial counsel was ineffective in “failing to investigate Ms. Long.” Appellant
attached an affidavit from Long stating that he was at her house “overnight” on the night
of the robbery and she tried to “reach out” to defense trial counsel several times.
Appellant also attached an affidavit of his own to the motion, stating he told defense trial
counsel about Long “to no avail” and that her testimony would have been exculpatory
because appellee could not prove his whereabouts due to a malfunction of the ankle
bracelet he was wearing at the time. Appellee filed a response in opposition. The trial
court overruled appellant’s petition by judgment entry dated April 4, 2018.
{¶17} Appellant now appeals from the trial court’s entry of April 4, 2018.
{¶18} Appellant raises two assignments of error:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶19} “I. A TRIAL COURT ABUSES ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILS TO TAKE
INTO CONSIDERATION THE AFFIDAVITS SET FORTH IN A PETITIONER’S PETITION
FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.”
{¶20} “II. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO
INVESTIGATE THE TESTIMONY OF CHARLOTTE LONG.” Stark County, Case Nos. 2018CA00046, 2018CA00056 8
ANALYSIS
I., II.
{¶21} Appellant’s two assignments of error are interrelated and will be considered
together. In his first assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court should have
considered the affidavits of appellant and Long in ruling upon his petition for post-
conviction relief. In his second assignment of error, he argues he received ineffective
assistance of defense trial counsel. We disagree with both arguments.
{¶22} Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his petition for post-
conviction relief filed pursuant to R.C. 2953.21, which states in pertinent part:
(A)(1)(a) Any 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. The petitioner may file a supporting affidavit and
other documentary evidence in support of the claim for relief.
{¶23} A defendant may only seek post-conviction relief for violations of his State
and Federal Constitutional rights. Both the United States Constitution and the Ohio
Constitution provide for the right to assistance of counsel. Counsel's performance will not
be deemed ineffective unless and until counsel's performance is proved to have fallen
below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice Stark County, Case Nos. 2018CA00046, 2018CA00056 9
arises from counsel's performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct.
2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). To show a defendant has been prejudiced by counsel's
deficient performance, the defendant must demonstrate, but for counsel's errors, the
result of the trial would have been different. State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538
N.E.2d 373 (1989).
{¶24} In order for an indigent petitioner to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing in
a post-conviction relief proceeding on a claim that he was denied effective assistance of
counsel, the two-part Strickland test is to be applied. Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364,
113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180(1993); Bradley, supra, 42 Ohio St.3d 136. The petitioner
must therefore prove that: 1) counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonable representation; and 2) there exists a reasonable probability that, were it not
for counsel's errors, the result of the trial would have been different. Id.
{¶25} Furthermore, before a hearing is granted in proceedings for post-conviction
relief upon a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the petitioner bears the initial
burden to submit evidentiary material containing sufficient operative facts that
demonstrate a substantial violation of any of defense counsel's essential duties to his
client and prejudice arising from counsel's ineffectiveness. State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio
St.3d 279, 289, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999); State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107, 413 N.E.2d
819 (1980), syllabus; see, also Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at 687.
{¶26} We have previously held that our standard of review is de novo when
reviewing a trial court's dismissal or denial of a petition for post-conviction relief without a
hearing. State v. Johnson, 5th Dist. Guernsey No. 12 CA 19, 2013-Ohio-1398, ¶ 27, citing Stark County, Case Nos. 2018CA00046, 2018CA00056 10
State v. Volgares, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 05CA28, 2006-Ohio-3788, ¶ 8, internal citation
omitted.
{¶27} The Ohio Supreme Court has also recognized: “In 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, 388, 860 N.E.2d 77, 2006–Ohio–6679, ¶
51. A petition for post-conviction relief does not provide a petitioner a second opportunity
to litigate his or her conviction, nor is the petitioner automatically entitled to an evidentiary
hearing on the petition. State v. Wilhelm, 5th Dist. Knox No. 05–CA–31, 2006–Ohio–
2450, ¶ 10, citing State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107, 110, 413 N.E.2d 819 (1980). As
an appellate court reviewing a trial court's decision in regard to the “gatekeeping” function
in this context, we apply an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gondor, supra, at ¶ 52,
citing State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999); accord State v.
Scott, 5th Dist. Stark No.2006CA00090, 2006–Ohio–4694, ¶ 34. In order to find an abuse
of discretion, we must determine that the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary
or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore,
5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶28} Both of appellant’s arguments in the instant case are premised upon his
assertion that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel because defense trial
counsel failed to “investigate” a potential alibi witness--Long, the subject of the motion for
new trial. Appellant attached two affidavits to his post-conviction petition, his own and
Long’s.
{¶29} Long’s states in pertinent part: Stark County, Case Nos. 2018CA00046, 2018CA00056 11
* * * *. I am writing this letter on behalf of [appellant]. He’s been a
friend of mine for a few years. I’ve tried to reach out to his lawyer
since he was being held in the County. On the day in question
[appellant] was at my house on 632 Young St. S.E. Massillon, Ohio
44646, if you look at his phone record and location you can see that.
He was at my house overnight. If you have any questions feel free
to call me at [redacted]. * * * *.
{¶30} Appellant’s own affidavit states in pertinent part:
* * * *. Before my trial, I informed [defense trial counsel] my alibi and
the name and number of Ms. Charlotte Long who lives at 632 Young
Street Massillon Ohio and informed him that I was with her all night.
Ms. Long tried to contact [defense trial counsel] to no avail. After my
trial, which Ms. Long was unaware of, Ms. Long delivered an affidavit
stating that I was with her throughout the night to [defense trial
counsel]. [Defense trial counsel] failed to request a new trial due to
new evidence. * * * *.
{¶31} First, appellant’s claim that defense trial counsel failed to file a motion for
new trial based upon the Long alibi is belied by the record. Counsel filed a motion for
new trial, accompanied by an affidavit completed by “Charlotte Brown,” but the trial court
overruled the motion because Long’s identity and purported alibi was not newly-
discovered evidence.
{¶32} Appellant's own affidavit is self-serving in addition to being factually wrong.
Affidavits which merely set forth legal conclusions or opinions without stating supporting Stark County, Case Nos. 2018CA00046, 2018CA00056 12
facts are insufficient. Tolson v. Triangle Real Estate, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 03AP–715,
2004–Ohio–2640, paragraph 12. Appellant's self-serving affidavit presumes prejudice
and is insufficient to demonstrate he suffered any prejudice by his counsel's alleged
failure.
{¶33} Long’s affidavit avers she attempted to contact defense trial counsel about
the possibility of testifying on behalf of appellant, and yet she simultaneously claims not
to have known when the trial took place. She states counsel failed to contact her prior to
the end of the trial and she could have helped appellant be found not guilty. The
corroboration of this statement, apparently, is the fact that appellant’s ankle bracelet could
not reliably establish his whereabouts on the night of the robbery. We note, though, that
evidence at trial directly contradicts appellant’s purported alibi, and Long’s statement,
because Summerville identified appellant as one of the robbers on the videotape and
other circumstantial evidence tied him to the robbery. The ineffectiveness of the ankle
bracelet was not insurmountable for appellee at trial and appellee was able to place
appellant at the scene of the robbery.
{¶34} Even if we accept Long’s affidavit as true, therefore, appellant has not
demonstrated how her testimony would have changed the outcome of the trial because it
would have been her word against Summerville and the circumstantial evidence
otherwise tying appellant to the robbery. The weight of the evidence and the credibility
of the witnesses are determined by the trier of fact. State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d
227, 231, 2002-Ohio-2126, 767 N.E.2d 216, ¶ 79. Appellant’s assertion that Long’s
testimony would have resulted in his acquittal is purely speculative. Stark County, Case Nos. 2018CA00046, 2018CA00056 13
{¶35} We therefore find appellant has not demonstrated that but for the alleged
failures of defense trial counsel, the outcome of the trial would have been different. See,
State v. Poulton, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2016-0023, 2017-Ohio-60, appeal not
allowed, 149 Ohio St.3d 1421, 2017-Ohio-4038, 75 N.E.3d 238.
{¶36} We further find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief. As self-serving testimony, the trial court
could give little or no weight to appellant’s own affidavit. State v. Church, 5th Dist. Stark
No. 2017CA00216, 2018-Ohio-368, ¶ 33, appeal not allowed, 152 Ohio St.3d 1483, 2018-
Ohio-1990, 98 N.E.3d 296, citing Calhoun, supra, 86 Ohio St.3d at 281; State v. Elmore,
5th Dist. No. 2005–CA–32, 2005–Ohio–5740, ¶ 109. The judge who reviewed defendant's
post-conviction relief petition was the same judge who presided at the jury trial and the
sentencing hearing. Thus, the trial judge was familiar with the underlying proceedings and
was in the best position to assess appellant’s credibility in his affidavit, having presided
over appellant's jury trial. Calhoun, supra, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 286.
{¶37} Appellant vaguely contends that defense trial counsel did not properly
“investigate” Long. In ruling upon the motion for new trial, the trial court found “* * *
*[appellant] had knowledge of the alibi at the time of the trial and had had knowledge of
the witness for an extended period of time.” When there is no demonstration that counsel
failed to research the facts or the law or that counsel was ignorant of a crucial defense, a
reviewing court defers to counsel's judgment in the matter. State v. Clayton, 62 Ohio St.2d
45, 49, 402 N.E.2d 1189 (1980), citing People v. Miller, 7 Cal.3d 562, 573-574, 102
Cal.Rptr. 841, 498 P.2d 1089 (1972); State v. Wiley, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 03AP-340,
2004-Ohio-1008, ¶ 21. Stark County, Case Nos. 2018CA00046, 2018CA00056 14
{¶38} The petition, the documentary evidence, the files, the transcript and the
record do not demonstrate that appellant set forth sufficient operative facts to establish
substantive grounds for relief concerning counsel's effectiveness. See, State v. Curtis,
5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2018-0014, 2018-Ohio-2822, citing Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d
at paragraph two of the syllabus; see R.C. 2953.21(C).
{¶39} Appellant has not established ineffective assistance of defense trial counsel
and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling his petition for post-conviction
relief. Appellant’s two assignments of error are therefore overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶40} Appellant’s two assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the
Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Delaney, J.,
Wise, John, P.J. and
Wise, Earle, J., concur.