[Cite as State v. Forrester, 2024-Ohio-5724.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES: : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- : : ANTOINE L. FORRESTER, : Case No. 2024CA00045 : Defendant - Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2022- CR-1013
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: December 6, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
KYLE L. STONE ANTOINE FORRESTER, Pro Se Prosecuting Attorney #794-298 Stark County, Ohio Belmont Correctional Institution P.O. Box 540 By: CHRISTOPHER A. PICKARSKI St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Appellate Division 110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 510 Canton, Ohio 44702-1413 Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00045 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} The appellant appeals the decision of the trial court denying his motion for
post-conviction relief. Appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} The appellant was owed $10.00 by the victim and believed that the victim
had received a $2,000.00 tax refund. On the morning of April 20, 2022, the appellant
went to the victim’s apartment with a Walther .380 pistol and his 15-year-old best friend
to get his money back. The appellant and his friend kicked in the apartment door and
entered the victim’s home. The victim and two females were inside the apartment. The
appellant demanded his money while pointing the gun at the victim’s face, his finger on
the trigger. The appellant then shot the victim in the face, and he and his friend fled.
{¶3} Law enforcement officers were called to the scene, and the victim was
transported to the hospital where he was pronounced dead shortly after arrival. A single
shell casing was found in the apartment. One of the female witnesses stated that she
could identify the two juveniles responsible; she knew one of them as “Ty,” and described
the other as a “light skinned black male.” Officers apprehended the 15 year-old soon
thereafter, and he gave a statement admitting to both his and the appellant’s involvement
in the shooting. The police showed a photo array to the female witness, and she identified
the appellant as the individual who shot the victim.
{¶4} The appellant was arrested by U.S. Marshals the following day while hiding
in the attic of his home. A Walther .380 pistol was also located in the attic, and testing
later confirmed that it matched the shell casing found in the victim’s apartment. The
appellant was transported to the Canton Police Department and given his Miranda rights. Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00045 3
The appellant agreed to waive his Miranda rights, signed a written waiver of those rights,
and thereafter made incriminating statements to law enforcement officers.
{¶5} The appellant, who was seventeen years old at the time he committed the
offense, was charged and bound over to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas,
General Division, to be tried as an adult. The Stark County Grand Jury issued an
indictment charging the appellant with one count of aggravated murder in violation of R.C.
2903.01(B), an unclassified felony; one count of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C.
2911.01(A)(1) and (3), a felony of the first degree; one count of aggravated burglary in
violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1) and (2), a felony of the first degree; one count of murder
in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B), an unclassified felony; and, one count of felonious assault
in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (2), a felony of the second degree. Each count was
accompanied by a three-year firearm specification in violation of R.C. 2941.145(A). The
appellant pleaded not guilty and was appointed counsel, who undertook investigation and
discovery.
{¶6} The appellant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that he was subjected to
a custodial interrogation and that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive
his Miranda rights prior to making incriminating statements to the police. The trial court
held a suppression hearing, and thereafter denied the motion. The appellant then
withdrew his pleas of not guilty and entered pleas of no contest to all charges.
{¶7} A plea and sentencing hearing took place. The appellee provided a
recitation of the facts, after which the trial court found the appellant guilty on all charges
and sentenced him to an indefinite term of twenty years to life in prison for aggravated
murder, to be served consecutively to a three-year mandatory prison term for the Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00045 4
attendant firearm specification, and further classified him as a violent offender. The trial
court found that all remaining charges and specifications merged for purposes of
sentencing.
{¶8} The appellant was appointed appellate counsel and appealed from the trial
court’s denial of his motion to suppress. This Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in
State v. Forrester, 2023-Ohio-3025 (5th Dist.). The appellant thereafter filed several
motions and applications with this Court, all of which were denied. He appealed two of
those denials to the Ohio Supreme Court, which declined jurisdiction in both matters. See,
State v. Forrester, 2024-Ohio-0313; and, State v. Forrester, 2024-Ohio-0368.
{¶9} On October 16, 2023, the appellant filed a “Petition to Vacate or Set Aside
Judgment of Conviction and Sentence” with the trial court, which was essentially a petition
for postconviction relief, together with the “Sworn Affidavit of Antoine L. Forrester” in
support of the Petition. The appellee filed a Response in Opposition to the appellant’s
Petition on November 16, 2023, and the appellant filed a Reply Brief in Support on
December 14, 2023. On February 8, 2024, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry in
which it denied the Petition without a hearing, finding that the appellant’s Affidavit was
both self-serving and offered only conclusory statements, and that his claims were barred
by res judicata.
{¶10} The appellant filed a timely appeal, and sets forth the following nine
assignments of error:
{¶11} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ERRED IN
ISSUING INADEQUATE AND ERRONEOUS FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00045 5
R.C. 2953.21(H). THE FINDINGS DOES NOT SPECIFY WHICH CLAIMS WERE
BARRED BY RES JUDICATA OR WHAT PARTS OF THE RECORD WERE FOUND TO
HAVE ESTABLISHED THE BAR AND DOES NOT ADDRESS THE MATERIAL AND
DETERMINATIVE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER.”
{¶12} “II. APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
DURING THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WHERE COUNSEL FAILED TO
INVESTIGATE, OBTAIN, AND PRESENT EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE JUVENILE
COURT RECORD RELATING TO APPELLANT’S INCOMPETENCY DUE TO HIS
HISTORY OF MENTAL ILLNESS AND/OR HIS INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES, HIS
EDUCATION, HIS BACKGROUND, AND HIS INTELLIGENCE, WHICH COULD HAVE
BEEN USED TO CHALLENGE THE MIRANDA WAIVER AND THE INCRIMINATING
STATEMENTS AS NOT BEING KNOWINGLY INTELLIGENTLY, OR VOLUNTAIRLY
[SIC] GIVEN.”
{¶13} “III. THE STATE COMMITTED BRADY VIOLATIONS DURING THE
SUPPRESSION HEARING WHEN IT FAILED TO DISCLOSE EVIDENCE OF
APPELLANT’S INCOMPETENCY BASED ON HIS HISTORY OF MENTAL ILLNESS
AND INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES INABILITY TO READ, WRITE, AND
COMPREHEND.”
{¶14} “IV. APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
DURING THE BINDOVER PROCEEDINGS WHERE COUNSEL FAILED TO REQUEST
FOR A COMPLETE MENTAL EXAMINATION OR A COMPETENCY EVALUATION
WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT SUCH REQUEST.” Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00045 6
{¶15} “V. THE JUVENILE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY
DISREGARDING UNREFUTTED [SIC] EVIDENCE, ENGAGING IN AN ARBITRARY
ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND LAW, AND GRANTING THE STATE'S MOTION TO
TRANSFER APPELLANT'S CASE TO ADULT COURT, IN VIOLATION OF R.C.
2152.12(B) AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE
OHIO CONSTITUTION.”
{¶16} “VI. APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
DURING THE BINDOVER PROCEEDINGS WHERE COUNSEL FAILED TO ENSURE
THAT THE STATE PROVIDED FULL DISCOVERY OF APPELLANT’S JUVENILE
RECORDS, WHICH INCLUDES BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL PREVIOUS AND
CURRENT MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSIS, PROGNOSIS, TREATMENTS,
EXAMINATIONS, HIS JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS, HIS EDUCATION, AND HIS
INTELLIGENCE. THUS, COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY FAILING TO OBJECT TO
THE LACK OF COMPLETE DISCOVERY, OR BY FAILING TO REQUEST A
CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING TO OBTAIN FULL DISCOVERY.”
{¶17} “VII. APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL DURING THE BINDOVER PROCEEDINGS WHERE DURING THE
PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE JUVENILE
COURT’S FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE WHEN THE STATE FAILED TO PROVIDE
SUFFICIENT CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF EVERY ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSES.”
{¶18} “VIII. APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL DURING THE BINDOVER PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING WHERE Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00045 7
COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE JUVENILE COURT’S FAILURE TO APPLY
THE STANDARD SET FORTH IN THE RELEVANT SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT
IN FARE V. MICHAEL C., 442 U.S. 707, 61 L ED. 2D 197, 99 S. CT. 2560 IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THE JUVENILE CONFESSION WAS VALID.
{¶19} “IX. APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL DURING THE JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS WHERE COUNSEL FAILED TO
MOVE THE JUVENILE COURT DURING THE AMENABILITY HEARING TO ORDER AN
INVESTIGATION INTO APPELLANT’S HISTORY, EDUCATION, MENTAL STATE,
FAMILY SITUATION, AND ANY OTHER FACTOR BEARING ON WHETHER THE
CHILD IS AMENDABLE TO JUVENILE REHABILITATION, AS MANDATED PURSUANT
TO R.C. 2152.12(B) TO DETERMINE WHETHER APPELLANT WAS AMENABLE TO
REHABILITATION IN THE JUVENILE SYSTEM.
APPLICABLE LAW
{¶20} Petitions for post-conviction relief are governed by R.C. 2953.21, which
provides in pertinent part:
(A)(1)(a) A person in any of the following categories 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:
(i) Any person who has been convicted of a criminal offense or
adjudicated a delinquent child and who claims that there was such a denial
or infringement of the person's rights as to render the judgment void or Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00045 8
voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United
States;
{¶21} When a defendant files a post-conviction petition pursuant to R.C. 2953.21,
the trial court must grant an evidentiary hearing unless it determines that the files and
records of the case show the petitioner is not entitled to relief. R.C. 2953.21(F). A trial
court may also dismiss a petition for post-conviction relief without holding a hearing when
the doctrine of res judicata bars the claims raised in the petition. State v. Szefcyk, 1996-
Ohio-337 at p. 96. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a defendant who was represented
by counsel is barred from raising an issue in a petition for post-conviction relief if the
defendant raised or could have raised the issue at trial or on direct appeal. Id. at 95. State
v. Weaver, 2018-Ohio-2509, ¶17 (5th Dist.), appeal not allowed, State v. Weaver, 2018-
Ohio-4285.
{¶22} A trial court's decision to deny a petition for post-conviction relief without
holding an evidentiary hearing is within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v.
King, 2020-Ohio-1373, ¶8 (5th Dist.), citing State v. McKelton, 2015-Ohio-4228 (12th
Dist.). “Abuse of discretion” means an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary or
unconscionable. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87 (1985). Most
instances of abuse of discretion will result in decisions that are simply unreasonable,
rather than decisions that are unconscionable or arbitrary. AAAA Ent., Inc. v. River Place
Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 (1990). An unreasonable
decision is one backed by no sound reasoning process which would support that decision.
Id. “It is not enough that the reviewing court, were it deciding the issue de novo, would Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00045 9
not have found that reasoning process to be persuasive, perhaps in view of countervailing
reasoning processes that would support a contrary result.” Id.
{¶23} Additionally, a petitioner must support his claims with evidentiary-quality
documents. The Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio addressed this issue in State v. Jackson,
64 Ohio St.2d 107 (1980), stating:
Before a hearing is granted, the petitioner bears the initial burden in
a post-conviction proceeding to submit evidentiary documents containing
sufficient operative facts to demonstrate the lack of competent counsel and
also that the defense was prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness.
Broad assertions without a further demonstration of prejudice do not
warrant a hearing for all post-conviction petitions. General conclusory
allegations to the effect that a defendant has been denied effective
assistance of counsel are inadequate as a matter of law to impose an
evidentiary hearing. See Rivera v. United States (C.A. 9, 1963), 318 F.2d
606.
Id. at 111.
{¶24} It is within the purview of the trial court to judge the credibility of any
affidavits presented. State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 284 (1999). In assessing the
credibility of an affidavit, a trial court should consider relevant factors including “whether
the judge reviewing the postconviction relief petition also presided at the trial.” Id. at 285,
citing State v. Moore, 99 Ohio App.3d 748 (1st Dist.1994).
{¶25} To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must
demonstrate: (1) deficient performance by counsel, i.e., that counsel's performance fell Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00045 10
below an objective standard of reasonable representation, and (2) that counsel's errors
prejudiced the defendant, i.e., a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors, the
result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687-688 (1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989), paragraphs two and
three of the syllabus. “Reasonable probability” is “probability sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome.” Strickland at 694.
{¶26} Because there are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any
given case, judicial scrutiny of a lawyer's performance must be highly deferential.
Strickland, at 694. “Decisions on strategy and trial tactics are granted wide latitude of
professional judgment, and it is not the duty of a reviewing court to analyze trial counsel's
legal tactics and maneuvers.” State v. Quinones, 2014-Ohio-5544, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.).
ANALYSIS
{¶27} For ease of analysis, we address the appellant’s assignments of error out
of order.
Assignments of Error Numbers Two through Nine
{¶28} The appellant argues in assignments of error numbers two through nine that
his counsel was ineffective in connection with the juvenile bindover proceedings and the
suppression hearing. As set forth above, in order to prevail on an ineffective assistance
of counsel argument the appellant must establish both that his trial counsel’s performance
fell below an objective standard of reasonable representation involving a substantial
violation of an essential duty to the appellant, and that he was prejudiced by the alleged
ineffectiveness. However, such claims are still subject to the doctrine of res judicata. Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00045 11
{¶29} The issues of which the appellant complains in assignments of error
numbers two through nine existed at the time of his plea and sentence. He therefore could
have raised these issues in a direct appeal. As the Ohio Supreme Court has held:
Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars
the convicted defendant from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except
an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due
process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the
trial which resulted in that judgment of conviction or on an appeal from that
judgment.
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus. Because the
appellant could have raised his complaints in a direct appeal and failed to do so, the trial
court did not err in finding them barred by the doctrine of res judicata and denying his
petition without a hearing.
{¶30} In addition, the trial court committed no error because the appellant failed
to support his petition with evidentiary-quality documents. Before a petitioner can be
granted a hearing in proceedings for post-conviction relief upon a claim of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel, the petitioner bears the initial burden to submit evidentiary
quality materials containing sufficient operative facts which demonstrate a substantial
violation of any of trial counsel's essential duties, in addition to prejudice arising from that
ineffectiveness. State v. Church, 2018-Ohio-368 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Calhoun, 86
Ohio St.3d 279 (1999). The failure to present essential operative facts in supporting
evidentiary-quality materials warrants dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief
without a hearing. State v. Murphy, 1987 WL 19835 (5th Dist., Oct. 29, 1987). Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00045 12
{¶31} The appellant’s supporting documentation consisted only of his own self-
serving affidavit. A petitioner's self-serving affidavit generally does not meet his required
minimum level of cogency. State v. Kapper, 5 Ohio St.3d 36 (1983). The appellant’s
affidavit failed to demonstrate a substantial violation of his counsel's essential duty, nor
did it demonstrate prejudice arising from any alleged ineffectiveness. Accordingly,
assignments of error numbers two through nine are overruled.
Assignment of Error Number One
{¶32} The appellant argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred
because it failed to issue adequate and correct findings of fact and conclusions of law
that conform to the requirements of R.C. 2953.21(H). We disagree.
{¶33} R.C. 2953.21(H) provides in pertinent part:
(H) If the court does not find grounds for granting relief, it shall make and
file findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall enter judgment denying
relief on the petition. If the petition was filed by a person who has been
sentenced to death, the findings of fact and conclusions of law shall state
specifically the reasons for the denial of relief on the petition and of each
claim it contains….
The trial court set forth general findings of fact and conclusions of law in its February 8,
2024, Judgment Entry when it summarized the case history, set forth the applicable law,
and held:
… the Court finds that Forrester has failed to set forth sufficient operative
facts to establish substantive rounds for relief. As such, the Court finds that
Forrester is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the instant petition. Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00045 13
Further, upon review of the evidence and arguments submitted by
Forrester, the Court finds that he has failed to demonstrate that there was
denial or infringement upon his Constitutional rights so as to warrant the
relief sought.
{¶34} While the trial court did not use specific headings entitled “findings of fact”
and “conclusions of law,” the February 8, 2024, Judgment Entry did in fact contain the
requisite information and analysis. Moreover, the trial court was not required to separately
state with specificity the reasons for its denial as to each and every one of the claims
contained in the appellant’s Petition; such specificity is only required in cases where the
petitioner has been sentenced to death, and the appellant herein was not. Furthermore,
assuming arguendo that the trial court erred in failing to utilize specific “findings of fact”
and “conclusions of law” headings in its Judgment Entry, any such error was harmless.
Crim.R. 52(A) defines harmless error in the context of criminal cases and provides: “Any
error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be
disregarded.” The fact that the trial court did not utilize specific “findings of fact” and
“conclusions of law” headings in its Judgment Entry does not affect the appellant’s
substantial rights, particularly when the Entry contained the necessary analysis in support
of the court’s denial of his Petition. Accordingly, the appellant’s assignment of error
number one is overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶35} Based upon the foregoing, we find that the appellant’s claims are barred by
the doctrine of res judicata. Furthermore, even if they were not, the affidavits,
documentary evidence, files, and records do not demonstrate that the appellant set forth Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00045 14
sufficient operative facts to establish substantive grounds for the relief sought.
Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief
without holding an evidentiary hearing. The appellant’s assignments of error are therefore
overruled, and the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is hereby
affirmed.
By: Baldwin, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Hoffman, J. concur.