[Cite as State v. Meyer, 2018-Ohio-3009.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLERMONT COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2017-12-063
: OPINION - vs - 7/30/2018 :
RONALD MEYER, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2016 CR 00250
D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas Horton, 76 South Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for plaintiff-appellee
Ronald Meyer, #A731292, Madison Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 740, London, Ohio 43140-0740, defendant-appellant, pro se
RINGLAND, J.
{¶ 1} Petitioner-appellant, Ronald Meyer, appeals from the decision of the Clermont
County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for postconviction relief. For the reasons
detailed below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Meyer entered a guilty plea to one count of illegal manufacture of drugs in
violation of R.C. 2925.04(A), a first-degree felony, and one count of corrupting another with Clermont CA2017-12-063
drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.02(A)(5), also a first-degree felony. The bill of particulars
provided factual background of the offense:
Specifically, the co-defendant gave birth to a child on 3/28/16 in the bathtub at 4232 Clough Lane; Cincinnati, Ohio 45245. Prior to giving birth, the defendant manufactured methamphetamine at the residence where the defendant [sic] and her newborn baby were living. The defendant and co-defendant used methamphetamine prior to the child's birth, and continued to use methamphetamine which the co-defendant passed on to her newborn baby when she breastfed him. The defendant would provide methamphetamine to the co-defendant after manufacturing it. This occurred prior to the child's birth when the co-defendant was pregnant, and subsequent to the child's birth. A search warrant for the premises was obtained, and officers uncovered pseudoephedrine pills, and lithium battery strips along with other components used to manufacture methamphetamine. Officers also discovered a pipe and cut straws that contained methamphetamine. Both the defendant and co-defendant admitted to consuming methamphetamine during the stated timeframe. The defendant admitted to manufacturing methamphetamine inside the residence.
{¶ 3} The trial court sentenced Meyer to a six-year prison term for manufacturing
drugs and a consecutive three-year prison term for corrupting for an aggregate prison term of
nine years. Meyer did not file a direct appeal challenging either his conviction or sentence.
{¶ 4} Approximately 11 months later, Meyer filed a pro se motion for postconviction
relief. The trial court denied Meyer's motion for postconviction relief. Meyer now appeals,
raising four assignments of error for review.
{¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 6} THE COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POST-
CONVICTION RELIEF CITING RES JUDICATA WHERE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED
BY A VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
{¶ 7} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 8} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF FACT AND LAW AND
COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO ACCEPT A GUILTY PLEA -2- Clermont CA2017-12-063
WHICH LACKED FACTUAL BASIS AND WAS CONTRARY TO LAW.
{¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 10} COUNSEL WAS INNEFFECTIVE [sic] FOR ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO
ACCEPT A GUILTY PLEA THAT WAS CONTRARY TO LAW AND ENTERING INTO AN
OPEN SENTENCE AGREEMENT.
{¶ 11} Assignment of Error No. 4:
{¶ 12} TRIAL COURT ABUSED IT'S [sic] DISCRETION BY FAILURE TO CONDUCT
AN EVIDENTUARY [sic] HEARING AND APPOINT COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF PLAIN
ERROR.
{¶ 13} We will address Meyer's assignments of error together. In his four
assignments of error, Meyer argues the trial court erred by denying his petition for
postconviction relief. We find no merit to Meyer's argument.
{¶ 14} A postconviction proceeding is not an appeal of a criminal conviction, but
rather, a collateral civil attack on a criminal judgment. State v. Berrien, 12th Dist. Clinton No.
CA2015-02-004, 2015-Ohio-4450, ¶ 8. Under R.C. 2953.21(C) "a trial court properly denies
a defendant's petition for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing 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." State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999), paragraph two of the
syllabus.
{¶ 15} "In reviewing an appeal of postconviction relief proceedings, this court applies
an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Vore, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2012-06-049 and
CA2012-10-106, 2013-Ohio-1490, ¶ 10. The term "abuse of discretion" connotes more than
an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or
unconscionable." State v. Thornton, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-09-063, 2013-Ohio- -3- Clermont CA2017-12-063
2394, ¶ 34.
{¶ 16} In a written decision, the trial court denied Meyer's petition for postconviction
relief on the basis of res judicata. Following review, we find no error in the trial court's
decision. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted
defendant who was represented by counsel 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. Elder, 12th Dist. Butler
No. CA2013-01-008, 2013-Ohio-3574, ¶ 7; State v. Snead, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-
01-014, 2014-Ohio-2895, ¶ 18.
{¶ 17} There is an exception to the application of res judicata where the petitioner
presents competent, relevant, and material evidence outside the record that did not exist and
was, therefore, unavailable at the time he filed his direct appeal. State v. Blankenburg, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2012-04-088, 2012-Ohio-6175, ¶ 11. However, for this exception to apply,
the evidence outside the record must meet some threshold standard of cogency, must be
genuinely relevant, and must materially advance a petitioner's claim that there has been a
denial or infringement of his constitutional rights. Id.
{¶ 18} Meyer raises a litany of complaints, arguing that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel, and also argues that his guilty plea lacked any factual basis and he
should have received less prison time or been provided with an agreed upon sentence.
Meyer complains that his counsel "did little more than to persuade him to plead guilty and
hope for the best" and his counsel "convinced him to agree to plea [sic] guilty where there
was no agreed upon sentencing terms of years of incarceration." Because these arguments
could have been raised on direct appeal, we find that Meyer's claims are now barred by res
judicata. -4- Clermont CA2017-12-063
{¶ 19} Meyer's claims that the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable
doubt are similarly without merit, as "the effect of a guilty plea" is a "complete admission of
the defendant's guilt." State v. Middleton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2010-07-173, 2011-Ohio-
1631, ¶ 8.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Meyer, 2018-Ohio-3009.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLERMONT COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2017-12-063
: OPINION - vs - 7/30/2018 :
RONALD MEYER, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2016 CR 00250
D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas Horton, 76 South Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for plaintiff-appellee
Ronald Meyer, #A731292, Madison Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 740, London, Ohio 43140-0740, defendant-appellant, pro se
RINGLAND, J.
{¶ 1} Petitioner-appellant, Ronald Meyer, appeals from the decision of the Clermont
County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for postconviction relief. For the reasons
detailed below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Meyer entered a guilty plea to one count of illegal manufacture of drugs in
violation of R.C. 2925.04(A), a first-degree felony, and one count of corrupting another with Clermont CA2017-12-063
drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.02(A)(5), also a first-degree felony. The bill of particulars
provided factual background of the offense:
Specifically, the co-defendant gave birth to a child on 3/28/16 in the bathtub at 4232 Clough Lane; Cincinnati, Ohio 45245. Prior to giving birth, the defendant manufactured methamphetamine at the residence where the defendant [sic] and her newborn baby were living. The defendant and co-defendant used methamphetamine prior to the child's birth, and continued to use methamphetamine which the co-defendant passed on to her newborn baby when she breastfed him. The defendant would provide methamphetamine to the co-defendant after manufacturing it. This occurred prior to the child's birth when the co-defendant was pregnant, and subsequent to the child's birth. A search warrant for the premises was obtained, and officers uncovered pseudoephedrine pills, and lithium battery strips along with other components used to manufacture methamphetamine. Officers also discovered a pipe and cut straws that contained methamphetamine. Both the defendant and co-defendant admitted to consuming methamphetamine during the stated timeframe. The defendant admitted to manufacturing methamphetamine inside the residence.
{¶ 3} The trial court sentenced Meyer to a six-year prison term for manufacturing
drugs and a consecutive three-year prison term for corrupting for an aggregate prison term of
nine years. Meyer did not file a direct appeal challenging either his conviction or sentence.
{¶ 4} Approximately 11 months later, Meyer filed a pro se motion for postconviction
relief. The trial court denied Meyer's motion for postconviction relief. Meyer now appeals,
raising four assignments of error for review.
{¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 6} THE COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POST-
CONVICTION RELIEF CITING RES JUDICATA WHERE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED
BY A VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
{¶ 7} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 8} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF FACT AND LAW AND
COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO ACCEPT A GUILTY PLEA -2- Clermont CA2017-12-063
WHICH LACKED FACTUAL BASIS AND WAS CONTRARY TO LAW.
{¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 10} COUNSEL WAS INNEFFECTIVE [sic] FOR ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO
ACCEPT A GUILTY PLEA THAT WAS CONTRARY TO LAW AND ENTERING INTO AN
OPEN SENTENCE AGREEMENT.
{¶ 11} Assignment of Error No. 4:
{¶ 12} TRIAL COURT ABUSED IT'S [sic] DISCRETION BY FAILURE TO CONDUCT
AN EVIDENTUARY [sic] HEARING AND APPOINT COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF PLAIN
ERROR.
{¶ 13} We will address Meyer's assignments of error together. In his four
assignments of error, Meyer argues the trial court erred by denying his petition for
postconviction relief. We find no merit to Meyer's argument.
{¶ 14} A postconviction proceeding is not an appeal of a criminal conviction, but
rather, a collateral civil attack on a criminal judgment. State v. Berrien, 12th Dist. Clinton No.
CA2015-02-004, 2015-Ohio-4450, ¶ 8. Under R.C. 2953.21(C) "a trial court properly denies
a defendant's petition for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing 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." State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999), paragraph two of the
syllabus.
{¶ 15} "In reviewing an appeal of postconviction relief proceedings, this court applies
an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Vore, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2012-06-049 and
CA2012-10-106, 2013-Ohio-1490, ¶ 10. The term "abuse of discretion" connotes more than
an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or
unconscionable." State v. Thornton, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-09-063, 2013-Ohio- -3- Clermont CA2017-12-063
2394, ¶ 34.
{¶ 16} In a written decision, the trial court denied Meyer's petition for postconviction
relief on the basis of res judicata. Following review, we find no error in the trial court's
decision. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted
defendant who was represented by counsel 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. Elder, 12th Dist. Butler
No. CA2013-01-008, 2013-Ohio-3574, ¶ 7; State v. Snead, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-
01-014, 2014-Ohio-2895, ¶ 18.
{¶ 17} There is an exception to the application of res judicata where the petitioner
presents competent, relevant, and material evidence outside the record that did not exist and
was, therefore, unavailable at the time he filed his direct appeal. State v. Blankenburg, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2012-04-088, 2012-Ohio-6175, ¶ 11. However, for this exception to apply,
the evidence outside the record must meet some threshold standard of cogency, must be
genuinely relevant, and must materially advance a petitioner's claim that there has been a
denial or infringement of his constitutional rights. Id.
{¶ 18} Meyer raises a litany of complaints, arguing that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel, and also argues that his guilty plea lacked any factual basis and he
should have received less prison time or been provided with an agreed upon sentence.
Meyer complains that his counsel "did little more than to persuade him to plead guilty and
hope for the best" and his counsel "convinced him to agree to plea [sic] guilty where there
was no agreed upon sentencing terms of years of incarceration." Because these arguments
could have been raised on direct appeal, we find that Meyer's claims are now barred by res
judicata. -4- Clermont CA2017-12-063
{¶ 19} Meyer's claims that the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable
doubt are similarly without merit, as "the effect of a guilty plea" is a "complete admission of
the defendant's guilt." State v. Middleton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2010-07-173, 2011-Ohio-
1631, ¶ 8. Though Meyer also claims that his convictions lacked a "factual basis," we note
the bill of particulars sets forth the criminal conduct that the state would have sought to prove
at trial had Meyer not entered into a guilty plea. Furthermore, we find that no exception to the
application of res judicata applies in the present case, as Meyer does not present any
competent, relevant, or material evidence to support his claims in this matter. As a result, we
find Meyer's four assignments of error to be without merit and they are hereby overruled.
{¶ 20} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL, P.J., concurs.
PIPER, J., concurs separately.
PIPER, J., concurring separately.
{¶ 21} I concur with the majority's application of res judicata and to affirming the
judgment of the trial court. However, I disagree with an analysis that suggests we need to
examine the factual content of the bill of particulars as to what the state would have proved
had Meyer not pled guilty.
{¶ 22} Meyer did not file a direct appeal indicating the trial court's colloquoy was in
any way constitutionally defective. Therefore, we presume Meyer was informed before his
guilty plea was accepted, that by pleading guilty, he was admitting the truth of the charges
and waiving the state's burden to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore,
Meyer's guilty plea waived any need to prove the factual content supporting his charges.
State v. Lampe, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2015-03-028, 2015-Ohio-3837.
-5- Clermont CA2017-12-063
{¶ 23} In pleading guilty, Meyer waived any claim regarding the "factual basis" for his
charges. This is significant because upon being indicted a defendant is often aware of his or
her conduct supporting the charges and knows of his or her culpability; many times a guilty
plea is entered before a bill of particulars is filed by the state. In applying res judicata to
Meyer's postconviction relief petition, there is no need to examine a bill of particulars.
{¶ 24} In all other aspects of the majority opinion, I concur.
-6-