State v. Chapman

2025 Ohio 45

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 9, 2025
• Docket: 113802
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Chapman, 2025-Ohio-45.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff- Appellee, : No. 113802 v. :

LITRELL CHAPMAN, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

_______________________________________

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 9, 2025

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-96-345622-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel T. Van and Sarah E. Hutnik, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.

Michael A. Partlow, for appellant. MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J.:

Defendant-appellant Litrell Chapman appeals the trial court’s denial

of his successive motion for new trial. Because we find the trial court properly

denied the motion, we affirm the judgment appealed.

On April 11, 1997, Chapman was convicted of aggravated murder,

aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and one- and three-year firearm

specifications.1 This court affirmed the convictions on appeal but remanded the case

for resentencing in State v. Chapman, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 3042 (8th Dist. July

2, 1998). On July 27, 1998, the trial court resentenced Chapman and imposed a

three-year sentence on the firearm specifications, a life sentence for aggravated

murder with the possibility of parole after 20 years, and 10-year definite sentences

on the aggravated robbery and burglary charges to be served concurrently but

consecutively to the sentence for aggravated murder.2

On January 30, 2001, Chapman filed a motion for a new trial. In

addition to arguing error at trial, he argued that newly discovered evidence was

grounds to grant a new trial because two State witnesses, Clinton Robinson and

1 Chapman’s codefendants, Alonzo Quinnie and Willis McNeal, were also convicted in

connection with this case. See State v. Quinnie, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 3158 (8th Dist. July 9, 1998), and State v. McNeal, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 1596 (8th Dist. Apr. 5, 2001).

2 Not relevant to the issues raised in this appeal, Chapman has continued to challenge his

sentence. See State v. Chapman, 2016-Ohio-8151, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.); State v. Chapman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112307 (dismissed Jan. 11, 2023). Timothy Larkin, altered their testimony during the trial of appellant’s codefendant

Alonzo Quinnie. State v. Chapman, 2002-Ohio-1081, ¶ 2 (8th Dist.). This court

dismissed Chapman’s appeal because it was untimely filed and he did not seek leave

to file a delayed appeal. Id. at ¶ 10 – 11.

On December 8, 2006, Chapman filed a request for leave to file a

delayed motion for a new trial in which he argued his codefendants provided false

testimony at his trial. State v. Chapman, 2011-Ohio-4642, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.). The trial

court denied the motion. This court dismissed his appeal of the trial court’s denial

of the motion pursuant to R.C. 2505.02. State v. Chapman, 2011-Ohio-4642, ¶ 12

(8th Dist.).

On February 11, 2011, Chapman filed a “notice for newly discovered

evidence.” The trial court subsequently denied the notice, referring to Chapman’s

filing as a motion for new trial. Id. at ¶ 14. This court dismissed Chapman’s appeal

of that order because it was not a final order. Id. at ¶ 30.

In 2018, Chapman filed motions arguing that the State withheld

evidence. On December 4, 2019, the trial court denied the motions in the following

journal entry:

Request for judicial notice hearing requested to determine if the prosecution fail to disclose constitutional error that is outcome- determinative to the [defendant’s] guilt, filed pro se is hereby denied.

Hearing requested to determine if the prosecution fail to disclose constitutional error that is outcome-determinative to the petitioner[’s] conviction, filed pro se is hereby denied. Request for leave to request public record [O.R.C.] 149.43(b) to support a justiciable claim the prosecution fail to disclose evidence of the defendant’s innocence, filed pro [se] is hereby denied.

Chapman did not appeal the trial court’s denial of his motions.

On February 12, 2024, Chapman filed a motion for leave to file a

motion for new trial. Within the motion for leave, Chapman argued that he obtained

newly discovered evidence regarding Larkin’s testimony and that the State withheld

evidence. On March 18, 2024, the trial court denied the motion for leave to file a

motion for new trial.

Chapman appeals the denial of his motion for leave and asserts one

assignment of error that reads:

The trial court erred by denying appellant’s motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial.

Chapman argues the trial court erred by not holding a hearing on his

motion for leave and by not making a finding that he was unavoidably prevented

from discovering the evidence that formed the basis of his motion for new trial. The

State argues that the trial court did not err because Chapman did not show that he

was entitled to a new trial in his motion for leave and the arguments were previously

litigated and were barred by res judicata.

“Res judicata is applicable to all postconviction proceedings.” State v.

Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 95 (1996). “Under this doctrine, a defendant who was

represented by counsel is barred from raising an issue in a petition for

postconviction relief if the defendant raised or could have raised the issue at trial or on direct appeal.” Id. Further, this court has specifically held that “[r]es judicata

bars all subsequent new trial motions that are based on claims that were brought or

could have been brought on direct appeal or in prior motions filed under

Crim.R. 33.” State v. Williamson, 2019-Ohio-1985, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.).

In 2001, Chapman raised the issue of Larkin’s testimony in a motion

for new trial. In 2006, he again raised the issue of Larkin’s testimony. In 2018,

Chapman raised the issue of Larkin’s and Robinson’s testimony and argued in

motions to the trial court that the State failed to disclose evidence. Thus, Chapman

has previously litigated the issue of Larkin’s and Robinson’s testimony and the

alleged suppression of evidence. Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a motion

for new trial was subject to denial on the basis of res judicata.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. Case remanded to the

trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_________________________________ MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, PRESIDING JUDGE

LISA B. FORBES, J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR