[Cite as State v. Haynesworth, 2021-Ohio-1817.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 109965 v. :
RONZELL HAYNESWORTH, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 27, 2021
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-16-609380-B
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary M. Frey, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Ronzell Haynesworth, pro se.
ANITA LASTER MAYS, P.J.:
Defendant-appellant Ronzell Haynesworth (“Haynesworth”) appeals
the trial court’s decision to deny Haynesworth’s motion to vacate a void judgment
and sentence. We affirm the trial court’s decision. In 2017, Haynesworth pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated
robbery, a first-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), with a three-year
firearm specification. Haynesworth was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.
I. Facts and Procedural History
After Haynesworth’s conviction, he filed a petition for postconviction
relief, arguing that the trial court imposed a sentence that was cruel and unusual, in
violation of his constitutional rights. The state moved for summary judgment,
stating that Haynesworth’s argument was barred by res judicata because
Haynesworth could have raised that argument on direct appeal. The trial court
granted the state’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Haynesworth’s
claims were barred by res judicata.
In State v. Haynesworth, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106671, 2018-Ohio-
4519, Haynesworth appealed his convictions arguing that the trial court erred by
accepting his guilty plea. Id. at ¶ 6. A panel from this court determined that the trial
court “complied with Crim.R. 11(C) and affirmed Haynesworth’s convictions.” Id. at
¶ 9.
On July 29, 2020, Haynesworth filed a motion to vacate a void
judgment and sentence, arguing that his three-year firearm specification is void
because his codefendant in this case was found not guilty by a jury of the firearm
specification. The trial court denied Haynesworth’s motion to vacate. Thus,
Haynesworth has filed this appeal assigning two errors for our review: I. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendant- appellant, Haynesworth’s motion to vacate void judgment and sentence as it is contrary to law; and
II. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendant- appellant’s motion to vacate void judgment and sentence as it is contrary to law without holding an evidentiary hearing.
II. Motion to Vacate Void Judgment and Sentence
A. Standard of Review
“Where a criminal defendant, subsequent to his or her direct appeal,
files a motion seeking vacation or correction of his or her sentence on the basis that
his or her constitutional rights have been violated, such a motion is a petition for
postconviction relief as defined in R.C. 2953.21.” State v. Ray, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 109455, 2020-Ohio-5004, ¶ 10, citing State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 160,
679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997). “We review a trial court’s denial of a postconviction relief
petition for an abuse of discretion.” Id., citing State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279,
281, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999). “In general, a trial court abuses its discretion when its
judgment is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” Id., citing State v. White,
118 Ohio St.3d 12, 2008-Ohio-1623, 885 N.E.2d 905, ¶ 46.
B. Law and Analysis
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence
In Hayneworth’s assignments of error, he argues that the trial court
erred by first, denying his motion to vacate a void judgment and second, by denying
his motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. “In the context of postconviction petitions, the trial court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing a petition without
a hearing if (1) the petitioner fails to set out sufficient operative facts to establish
substantive grounds for relief, or (2) the operation of res judicata prohibits the
claims made in the petition.” Id., citing State v. Curry, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 108088, 2019-Ohio-5338, ¶ 15, State v. Abdussatar, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 92439, 2009-Ohio-5232, ¶ 15.
Haynesworth contends that his guilty plea is totally inconsistent with
the facts of this case when compared to the outcome of his codefendant’s case, and
that he should receive a lighter sentence than his codefendant because he
cooperated with the state. While Haynesworth pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery
with a three-year firearm specification, his codefendant chose not to plead guilty and
opted for a jury trial. At the end of the jury trial, the codefendant was found not
guilty of the firearm specification.
Although Haynesworth pleaded guilty, he now argues that a firearm
was not used at the robbery, and instead it was a cell phone. However, “[a] guilty
plea waives a defendant’s right to challenge sufficiency or manifest weight of the
evidence.” State v. Hill, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90513, 2008-Ohio-4857, ¶ 6.
Additionally, as a part of Haynesworth’s plea agreement with the state, he agreed
“to plead guilty to robbery with a three-year firearm specification, make a post-plea
statement with regard to the circumstances of the crime, and testify truthfully at his codefendant’s trial.” Haynesworth, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106671, 2018-Ohio-
4519, at ¶ 2.
2. Res Judicata
Further Haynesworth’s claims are barred by res judicata. In
Haynesworth, Haynesworth failed to raise the issue that his guilty plea should be
vacated because the evidence in the case was insufficient to support his guilty plea.
“Under the doctrine of res judicata, ‘a valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits
bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.’” Ray, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 109455, 2020-Ohio-5004, at ¶ 11, quoting State v. Patrick, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 99418, 2013-Ohio-5020, ¶ 7, citing Gravamen v. Parkman Twp., 73
Ohio St.3d 379, 382, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995). “When a petitioner seeks
postconviction relief on an issue that was raised or could have been raised on direct
appeal, the petition is properly denied by the application of the doctrine of res
judicata.” Id., citing State v. Tucker, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84595, 2005-Ohio-
109, ¶ 11. “In order to overcome the res judicata bar, the petitioner must show,
through the use of extrinsic evidence, that they could not have appealed the original
constitutional claim based on the information in the original trial record.” Id., citing
State v. Cody, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102213, 2015-Ohio-2764, ¶ 16.
Haynesworth also argues that at his codefendant's trial he testified
truthfully. He further incorrectly argues that the jury determined that Haynesworth did not brandished or have a firearm during the robbery. Appellant’s brief, p. 1. This
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Haynesworth, 2021-Ohio-1817.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 109965 v. :
RONZELL HAYNESWORTH, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 27, 2021
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-16-609380-B
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary M. Frey, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Ronzell Haynesworth, pro se.
ANITA LASTER MAYS, P.J.:
Defendant-appellant Ronzell Haynesworth (“Haynesworth”) appeals
the trial court’s decision to deny Haynesworth’s motion to vacate a void judgment
and sentence. We affirm the trial court’s decision. In 2017, Haynesworth pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated
robbery, a first-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), with a three-year
firearm specification. Haynesworth was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.
I. Facts and Procedural History
After Haynesworth’s conviction, he filed a petition for postconviction
relief, arguing that the trial court imposed a sentence that was cruel and unusual, in
violation of his constitutional rights. The state moved for summary judgment,
stating that Haynesworth’s argument was barred by res judicata because
Haynesworth could have raised that argument on direct appeal. The trial court
granted the state’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Haynesworth’s
claims were barred by res judicata.
In State v. Haynesworth, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106671, 2018-Ohio-
4519, Haynesworth appealed his convictions arguing that the trial court erred by
accepting his guilty plea. Id. at ¶ 6. A panel from this court determined that the trial
court “complied with Crim.R. 11(C) and affirmed Haynesworth’s convictions.” Id. at
¶ 9.
On July 29, 2020, Haynesworth filed a motion to vacate a void
judgment and sentence, arguing that his three-year firearm specification is void
because his codefendant in this case was found not guilty by a jury of the firearm
specification. The trial court denied Haynesworth’s motion to vacate. Thus,
Haynesworth has filed this appeal assigning two errors for our review: I. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendant- appellant, Haynesworth’s motion to vacate void judgment and sentence as it is contrary to law; and
II. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendant- appellant’s motion to vacate void judgment and sentence as it is contrary to law without holding an evidentiary hearing.
II. Motion to Vacate Void Judgment and Sentence
A. Standard of Review
“Where a criminal defendant, subsequent to his or her direct appeal,
files a motion seeking vacation or correction of his or her sentence on the basis that
his or her constitutional rights have been violated, such a motion is a petition for
postconviction relief as defined in R.C. 2953.21.” State v. Ray, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 109455, 2020-Ohio-5004, ¶ 10, citing State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 160,
679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997). “We review a trial court’s denial of a postconviction relief
petition for an abuse of discretion.” Id., citing State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279,
281, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999). “In general, a trial court abuses its discretion when its
judgment is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” Id., citing State v. White,
118 Ohio St.3d 12, 2008-Ohio-1623, 885 N.E.2d 905, ¶ 46.
B. Law and Analysis
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence
In Hayneworth’s assignments of error, he argues that the trial court
erred by first, denying his motion to vacate a void judgment and second, by denying
his motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. “In the context of postconviction petitions, the trial court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing a petition without
a hearing if (1) the petitioner fails to set out sufficient operative facts to establish
substantive grounds for relief, or (2) the operation of res judicata prohibits the
claims made in the petition.” Id., citing State v. Curry, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 108088, 2019-Ohio-5338, ¶ 15, State v. Abdussatar, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 92439, 2009-Ohio-5232, ¶ 15.
Haynesworth contends that his guilty plea is totally inconsistent with
the facts of this case when compared to the outcome of his codefendant’s case, and
that he should receive a lighter sentence than his codefendant because he
cooperated with the state. While Haynesworth pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery
with a three-year firearm specification, his codefendant chose not to plead guilty and
opted for a jury trial. At the end of the jury trial, the codefendant was found not
guilty of the firearm specification.
Although Haynesworth pleaded guilty, he now argues that a firearm
was not used at the robbery, and instead it was a cell phone. However, “[a] guilty
plea waives a defendant’s right to challenge sufficiency or manifest weight of the
evidence.” State v. Hill, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90513, 2008-Ohio-4857, ¶ 6.
Additionally, as a part of Haynesworth’s plea agreement with the state, he agreed
“to plead guilty to robbery with a three-year firearm specification, make a post-plea
statement with regard to the circumstances of the crime, and testify truthfully at his codefendant’s trial.” Haynesworth, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106671, 2018-Ohio-
4519, at ¶ 2.
2. Res Judicata
Further Haynesworth’s claims are barred by res judicata. In
Haynesworth, Haynesworth failed to raise the issue that his guilty plea should be
vacated because the evidence in the case was insufficient to support his guilty plea.
“Under the doctrine of res judicata, ‘a valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits
bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.’” Ray, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 109455, 2020-Ohio-5004, at ¶ 11, quoting State v. Patrick, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 99418, 2013-Ohio-5020, ¶ 7, citing Gravamen v. Parkman Twp., 73
Ohio St.3d 379, 382, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995). “When a petitioner seeks
postconviction relief on an issue that was raised or could have been raised on direct
appeal, the petition is properly denied by the application of the doctrine of res
judicata.” Id., citing State v. Tucker, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84595, 2005-Ohio-
109, ¶ 11. “In order to overcome the res judicata bar, the petitioner must show,
through the use of extrinsic evidence, that they could not have appealed the original
constitutional claim based on the information in the original trial record.” Id., citing
State v. Cody, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102213, 2015-Ohio-2764, ¶ 16.
Haynesworth also argues that at his codefendant's trial he testified
truthfully. He further incorrectly argues that the jury determined that Haynesworth did not brandished or have a firearm during the robbery. Appellant’s brief, p. 1. This
assertion is incorrect because Haynesworth was not on trial. He had already pleaded
guilty to the offenses. His codefendant was on trial, and the jury found that the
evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Haynesworth’s codefendant had or
brandished a weapon.
3. Void Judgment and Evidentiary Hearings
Haynesworth also contends that the jury’s decision in his
codefendant’s trial make his convictions void. Haynesworth has not demonstrated
that his constitutional rights were denied or were infringed upon in a way that would
render the trial court’s judgment void. “Under R.C. 2953.21, a petitioner may obtain
postconviction relief ‘only if the court can find that there was such a denial or
infringement of the rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment void or voidable
under the Ohio Constitution or the United States Constitution.’” State v. Pondexter,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108940, 2020-Ohio-1290, ¶ 7, quoting State v. Perry, 10
Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraph four of the syllabus. “A
postconviction petition is a means to reach constitutional issues that would
otherwise be impossible to reach because the evidence supporting those issues is not
contained in the record.” Id., citing State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399, 410, 639
N.E.2d 67 (1994); State v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93534, 2010-Ohio-1869,
¶ 11. “It does not provide a petitioner a second opportunity to litigate his or her
conviction.” Id., citing Smith at ¶ 12. Haynesworth’s argues that the trial court erred by dismissing his
motion without an evidentiary hearing are also misplaced. “It is well established
that ‘courts are not required to hold a hearing in every postconviction case.’” State v.
Hostacky, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103014, 2016-Ohio-397, ¶ 4, quoting State ex rel.
Madsen v. Jones, 106 Ohio St.3d 178, 2005-Ohio-4381, 833 N.E.2d 291, ¶ 10.
Because Haynesworth’s claims are barred by res judicata, the trial
court reserves discretion in whether to hold an evidentiary hearing. “The court acts
as a gatekeeper in reviewing the evidence to determine if there are substantive
grounds for relief.” Id., citing State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679,
860 N.E.2d 77, ¶ 51.
Where the petition, the supporting affidavits, the documentary evidence, the files, and the records do not demonstrate that petitioner set forth sufficient operative facts to establish substantive grounds for relief, the court may dismiss a petition for postconviction relief without a hearing.
Id., citing State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999), paragraph
two of the syllabus; State v. Moon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101972, 2015-Ohio-
1550, ¶ 22.
Therefore, Haynesworth’s assignments of errors are overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from 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.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
_________________________________ ANITA LASTER MAYS, PRESIDING JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR