Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
Yost, Ohio Attorney General, and Brad L. Tammaro, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Cody, pro se.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
A. JONES, SR, JUDGE.
1} Pro se defendant-appellant, John Donald Cody
("Cody"), a.k.a. Bobby Thompson, appeals the trial
court's decision to deny his postconviction petition.
Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm.
2} In 2013, Cody was convicted of one count each of
engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, complicity to
commit theft, tampering with records, complicity to tamper
with records, and identity fraud; seven counts of complicity
to commit money laundering, and 11 counts of identity fraud
after bilking Ohio donors of approximately $2 million in a
sham charity scam. The trial court imposed a total sentence
of 28 years in prison and ordered that Cody spend every
Veterans Day in solitary confinement.
3} Cody filed a direct appeal. In State v.
Thompson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100797, 2015-Ohio-2261,
this court found that the state of Ohio did not have
jurisdiction over the 11 counts of identity fraud contained
in Counts 13 through 23 and vacated his convictions on those
counts. This court also held that the trial court's
decision to sentence Cody to solitary confinement each
Veterans Day was contrary to law but overruled his assignment
of error that challenged the admission of certain evidence.
Id. at ¶ 29-30.
4} While his appeal was pending, Cody filed a
postconviction petition. In his petition, Cody raised five
claims: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) lack of
jurisdiction related to money laundering and identity theft
charges; (3) the state's failure to provide full
discovery; (4) issues with regard to his detention prior to
and during trial; and (5) prosecutorial misconduct before and
5} The state filed a memorandum contra, motion for
summary judgment, and proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The trial court granted the state's
motion for summary judgment, denying Cody's
postconviction petition. The court also adopted the
state's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
6} Cody appealed the denial of his postconviction
petition. State v. Cody, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
102213, 2015-Ohio-2764. Cody raised nine assignments of
error, claiming: (1) trial counsel was ineffective because
counsel refused to pursue certain witnesses that would have
established that Cody was working for the CIA; and did not
pursue a line of defense that Cody was medically incompetent
to stand trial or assist in his defense due to beatings he
received in jail; (2) the trial court abused its discretion
by denying his petition based on his argument that Counts 3-9
and 13-23 of the indictment should have been dismissed;
(3)exculpatory evidence was withheld from him; (4) the trial
court should have held a hearing on his claim that his
sentence was discriminatory, disproportionate, and excessive;
(5) the trial court erred when it did not hold a hearing on
his claims against the prosecutor; (6) the trial court erred
in granting summary judgment in favor of the state; (7) the
trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the state
without holding an evidentiary hearing to determine
Cody's credibility; and (8) and (9) the trial court erred
in adopting the state's findings of fact and conclusions
7} This court upheld the denial of his
postconviction petition, finding that (1) his petition was
barred by res judicata (assignments of error 1, 2, and 3);
(2) Cody did not show he was entitled to a hearing on his
postconviction petition (assignments of error 4 and 5); (3)
the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment
without holding a hearing (assignments of error 6 and 7); and
(4) the trial court did not err in adopting the state's
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (assignments
of error 8 and 9).
8} Cody subsequently appealed this court's
decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, which declined his
discretionary appeal. State v. Cody, 143 Ohio St.3d
1501, 2015-Ohio-4468, 39 N.E.3d 1271. He also filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the
United States that was denied. Thompson v. Ohio, 136
S.Ct. 2023, 195 L.Ed.2d 228 (2016).
9} In 2017, Cody filed an App.R. 26 application to
reopen his appeal with this court, claiming ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel. This court denied his
application. State v. Cody, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
100797, 2017-Ohio-1543. The Ohio Supreme Court and United
States Supreme Court declined jurisdiction. State v.
Cody, 150 Ohio St.3d 1411, 2017-Ohio-6964, 78 N.E.3d 910
and Cody v. Ohio, 138 S.Ct. 668, 199 L.Ed.2d 556
10} Cody also filed a complaint in federal court
against 15 defendants alleging multiple causes of action,
including denial of access to courts, retaliation, denial of
due process, denial of equal protection, unlawful search and
seizure of property, subjection to cruel and unusual
punishment, violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and numerous state law claims. See Cody v.
Slusher, N.D.Ohio No. 1:17-CV-00132, 2017 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 90716 (June 13, 2017). His federal case was recently
dismissed without prejudice. See Cody v. Slusher,
N.D.Ohio No. 1:17-CV-00132, (June 24, 2019).
11} As it pertains to the instant appeal, on May 11,
2018, Cody filed a "Motion to Correct Record." The
trial court denied his motion on May 15, 2018. Cody did not
timely appeal the court's denial; instead he later filed
a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal. We denied his
motion and dismissed his appeal as untimely. State v.
Cody, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107471. The Ohio Supreme
Court declined jurisdiction. State v. Cody, 153 Ohio
St.3d 1506, 2018-Ohio-4285, 109 N.E.3d 1261.
12} Cody subsequently filed a "Petition to
Vacate Judgment of Conviction and Sentence made
12.16.2013," which was virtually identical to his May
11, 2018 "Motion to Correct Record." The trial
court denied his petition, which became the basis for
Cody's notice of appeal in 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107664.
13} On June 13, 2018, Cody filed a "Motion for
Leave to File (Delayed) Motion for New Trial." On July
5, 2018, Cody filed a "Petition to Vacate or Set Aside
Judgment of Conviction or Sentence," which is identical