Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Parma Municipal Court Case No. 14 CRB-03624
APPELLANT William Woods, pro se
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kevin M. Butler City of Brooklyn Law
Director BY: James J. McDonnell Assistant Law Director
BEFORE: Jones, J., McCormack, P.J., and Blackmon, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
A. JONES, SR., JUDGE
Defendant-appellant William Woods appeals from the trial
court's judgment denying his petition for postconviction
relief For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
In 2014, Woods was charged with petty theft after he was
involved in an incident at the Walmart store located in
Brooklyn, Ohio. The matter was tried to the court in the
Parma Municipal Court, and the court found Woods guilty of
the charge. The court sentenced him to 180 days in jail, with
170 days credit for time served and imposed a $250 fine.
Woods appealed, and this court affirmed the conviction.
Brooklyn v. Woods, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102120,
2016-Ohio-1223. The following facts are primarily summarized
from this court's opinion in the direct appeal.
In June 2014, Woods was a customer at the subject Walmart.
Two asset protection specialists who worked for the store
testified at trial. According to their testimony, they saw
Woods go into the store's electronics department and
place in his cart a TV wall mount that retailed for $99.96
and an electronic accessory that retailed for $17.96. The
specialists then saw Woods leave the electronics department
and go to an aisle in the store where grocery items were
sold. The two specialists continued to observe Woods while he
was in the grocery aisle, and saw him peel off the Universal
Product Code ("UPC") sticker from the less
expensive accessory box and place it over the UPC sticker on
the box containing the wall mount. One of the specialists
testified that Woods left the accessory box
"behind" and proceeded to a check out line, where
he paid $17.96 for the wall mount. The specialists stopped
Woods before he left the store and escorted him to the assets
protection office, where he eventually admitted that he had
switched the "price tags."
One of the specialists testified about the security cameras
in the store, explaining that they were in a
"fixed" position. The specialist testified that,
because of the "fixed" position of the cameras, the
camera located near the grocery aisle where Woods switched
the UPC sticker did not capture Woods doing so. During
cross-examination of that specialist, defense counsel
attempted to play the portion of the surveillance video from
when Woods was in the electronics department, but due to
technological difficulties, was unable to do
The city and defense agreed to mark the video as "heard
and submitted" and it was admitted into evidence as a
joint exhibit. In rendering its decision, the court
referenced the video and stated that it had "carefully
review[ed] all of the evidence that was submitted."
In his direct appeal, Woods challenged the conviction based
on the following grounds: (1) ineffective assistance of his
counsel; (2) manifest weight of the evidence; (3) sufficiency
of the evidence; and (3) lack of due process and a fair
trial. After his conviction was affirmed, Woods filed an
App.R. 26 application to reopen his direct appeal, which was
denied. Brooklyn v. Woods, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
103120, 2016-Ohio-7603. Woods also filed a petition for
postconviction relief in the trial court, which was denied,
and is the subject of this appeal, with the following
assignments of error presented for our review:
I. The trial court erred by denying the petition for
post-conviction relief when the prosecuting attorney failed
to respond by answer or motion.
II. The trial court erred in its denial of post-conviction
relief by giving insufficient findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
III. The trial court erred in its denial of post-conviction
relief by failing to grant an evidentiary hearing.
IV. The petitioner's constitutional right to due process
[was] violated by having his petition heard by the ...