Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Mary M. Frey, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,
Mancino, Jr., for appellant.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
A JONES, SR., J.
1} Defendant-appellant Trevon Osborn
("Osborn") appeals from the trial court's June
2018 findings of fact and conclusions of law denying his
petition for postconviction relief without a hearing. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
2} In May 2016, Osborn was charged in a 12-count
indictment. After pretrial negotiations with the state, in
September 2016, Osborn pleaded guilty to the following
amended counts of the indictment: Count 1, aggravated
burglary with a three-year firearm specification; Count 3,
aggravated robbery with a three-year firearm specification;
Count 4, grand theft; Count 5, theft/aggravated theft; Counts
6 and 8, kidnapping; Counts 7 and 9, aggravated robbery;
Count 11, improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle;
and Count 12, impersonation of certain officers. All the
counts contained a forfeiture specification for a Ruger 9 mm
firearm. The remaining counts of the indictment were
3} Sentencing occurred in October 2016. The defense
and state agreed that Counts 3 through 6 and Counts 7 and 8
merged; the state elected to proceed on Counts 3 and 7,
aggravated robbery with a three-year firearm specification
and aggravated robbery, respectively. The trial court
sentenced Osborn to an aggregate 15-year prison term that
included consecutive sentences.
4} Osborn filed a direct appeal, challenging his
plea and sentence. This court affirmed the conviction and
sentence. State v. Osborn, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
5} In December 2017, he filed a petition for
postconviction relief, contending that his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to investigate the charges, which
forced him to plea. Osborn also contended that his trial
counsel informed him that he would only receive a nine-year
prison sentence. He supported his petition with a police
incident report relative to the offenses, an indictment from
another case, and his own affidavit. The court denied the
petition, and in June 2018, issued findings of fact and
conclusions of law. This appeal follows, with Osborn
asserting the following two assignments of error:
Defendant was denied due process of law when his
post-conviction petition was denied without a hearing.
Defendant was denied due process of law when he was not
granted relief on his post-conviction petition.
6} Postconviction relief is governed by R.C.
2953.21, which provides in relevant part as follows:
(A)(1)(a) Any person who has been convicted of a criminal
offense * * * and who claims that there was such a denial or
infringement of the person's rights as to render the
judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the
Constitution of the United States * * *, 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. The petitioner may file a supporting affidavit and
other documentary evidence in support of the claim for
* * *
(D) Before granting a hearing on a petition filed under
division (A) of this section, the court shall determine
whether there are substantive grounds for relief. In making
such a determination, the court shall consider, in addition
to the petition, the supporting affidavits, and the
documentary evidence, all the files and records pertaining to
the proceedings against the petitioner, including, but not
limited to, the indictment, the court's ...