Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Hall

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull

July 8, 2019

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HARGUS DENNISON HALL, Defendant-Appellant.

          Criminal Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2015 CR 01024.

          Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ashleigh Musick, Assistant Prosecutor, Administration Building, (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

          Hargus Dennison Hall, pro se, (Defendant-Appellant).

          OPINION

          MATT LYNCH, J.

         {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Hargus D. Hall, appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief by the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the lower court.

         {¶2} On December 19, 2016, Hall was found guilty of Burglary, a felony of the second degree in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) and (D), and subsequently sentenced to a prison term of eight years. Hall's conviction was upheld by this court in State v. Hall, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2017-T-0032, 2018-Ohio-1676.

         {¶3} On May 14, 2018, Hall filed a Petition to Vacate or Set Aside Judgment of Conviction or Sentence, seeking postconviction relief pursuant to R.C. 2953.21 with a request for evidentiary hearing.

         {¶4} On July 5, 2018, the State of Ohio responded with a Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Petition to Vacate or Set Aside Judgment.

         {¶5} On July 24, 2018, the trial court dismissed the Petition to Vacate or Set Aside Judgment of Conviction or Sentence without a hearing.

         {¶6} On August 14, 2018, Hall filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal, Hall raises the following assignments of error:

         {¶7} "[1.] The trial court erred in not giving petitioner an evidentiary hearing due to the violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel [sic], w[h]ere petitioners] counsel was not functioning as counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment on investigating other defenses."

         {¶8} "[2.] Trial court violated petitioners Fourteenth Amendment right of due process when a jury member came forward right before deliberating and admitted to being a friend of the homeowner and State[']s witness. That jury member lied about his relationship and how close he is with them."

         {¶9} "[3.] Petitioners Fourteenth Amendment right of due process was violated when an officer lied under oath about evidence that was seized from the vehicle."

         {¶10} "[4.] The trial court erred in not giving petitioner an evidentiary hearing due to the violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel [sic], w[h]ere petitioner['s] counsel was not functioning as counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment on investigating other defenses and asking for a hearing on a highly prejudicial] news paper article published the night the jury went home because it couldn't reach a verdict."

         {¶11} "[5.] Petitioners 6th Amendment [right] of effective trial counsel was violated w[h]ere trial counsel failed to investigate a mental health report that was supplied to him by petitioners] mental health doctor."

         {¶12} "[6.] Petitioners Fourth Amendment right to search and seizure was violated when the arresting officer and a detective went back to an apartment complex to search petitioners vehicle without a warrant."

         {¶13} "[7.] The trial court erred by not conducting a hearing for petitioners post conviction relief where petitioners 5th Amendment [right] of due process was violated when no photo line up was shown."

         {¶14} "[8.] Did the trial court fail to conduct a hearing when petitioners 5th Amendment right of due process was violated w[h]ere the prosecutor was representing petitioner as a victim in one case and prosecuting petitioner in this case."

         {¶15} "Any person who has been convicted of a criminal offense * * * 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." R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a).

         {¶16} "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 journal entries, the journalized records of the clerk of the court, and the court reporter's transcript." R.C. 2953.21(D).

         {¶17} "Unless the petition and the files and records of the case show the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues even if a direct appeal of the case is pending." R.C. 2953.21(F).

         {¶18} "[A] trial court's decision regarding a postconviction petition filed pursuant to R.C. 2953.21 will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion when the trial court's finding is supported by competent and credible evidence." State v. Gondor,112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, 860 N.E.2d 77, ¶ 60; State v. Clark, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.