Antonio M. Jones, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Larry Thomas, Defendant-Appellee.
from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas C.P.C. No.
Antonio M. Jones, pro se.
1} Plaintiff-appellant, Antonio M. Jones, appeals
the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
which, under R.C. 2935.10, refused to issue a warrant for the
arrest of defendant-appellee, Larry Thomas, and ordered the
case referred to the prosecuting attorney. For the following
reasons, we affirm the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2} On August 23, 2018, appellant, an inmate at the
Chillicothe Correctional Institution, filed an affidavit,
pursuant to R.C. 2935.09 and 2935.10, accusing appellee,
appellant's former defense attorney, of committing crimes
against him in defending him against a murder charge.
Specifically, he alleged appellee knowingly violated
appellant's constitutional rights and created a risk of
physical harm to him under R.C. 2921.45 when he
"negligently failed to protect [appellant's] rights
to a fair trial, and conspired [with the prosecutor] to
produce a conviction against his own client" by
"knowingly put[ting] forth a defense he knew would
lose"-a defense "that made absolutely no sense, as
said defense was completely contrary to the evidence he knew
was being introduce[d] at trial by the state." (Compl.
at 2, 3.) Appellant additionally alleged appellee obstructed
official business under R.C. 2921.31 by: failing to put forth
a reasonable defense and instead choosing a defense "he
knew would lose"; lying to other court officials and
concealing material facts; and allowing the court to abuse
its authority. (Compl. at 3.) According to appellant,
appellee's actions, including his failure to object,
showed he "conspired with the system to convict on the
charge of murder even after both the judge, and the
prosecutor openly admitted that they felt [appellant] did not
intend to kill the victim." (Compl. at 3.) Appellant
asserted this is a case where "ineffective assistance of
trial counsel, or mere negligence of counsel" rises to
the level of a criminal offense. (Compl. at 3.)
3} In support of his affidavit, appellant included a
police report of an interview with appellant, which states in
pertinent part that appellant told the investigator he
"missed the guy (who he believed was reaching for a gun)
and did not think he hit anything" and said shooting the
victim "was an accident, and * * * he was trying to
shoot someone else." (Ex. A-1 to Compl. at 2.) Appellant
also provided two pages of transcript that appear to be from
appellant's sentencing hearing, in which the prosecutor
At trial it was undisputed that [appellant] wasn't
actually trying to shoot the victim * * * in this case. I
wouldn't want that, the fact that he wasn't trying to
shoot that person makes it seem like it is an accident.
However, I think it is important to note that the jury did
find him guilty of Count 1, which is purpose murder with
transferred intent. Therefore the fact that he killed the
wrong person, I find not to be any sort of a mitigating
factor in this crime.
(Ex. A-1 to Comp. at 3.)
4} On June 10, 2019, the trial court issued a
decision finding, under R.C. 2935.10, appellant's
affidavit lacked meritorious claims and no probable cause
existed for the felony or misdemeanor charges alleged against
appellee. The trial court further found appellant's
affidavit was not made in good faith but was rather a
collateral attack on appellant's criminal conviction,
which had previously been affirmed by this court. The trial
court therefore held that no warrant would issue for the
arrest of appellee, terminated the case, and, pursuant to the
procedure mandated by R.C. 2935.10(A), referred the case to
the prosecuting attorney for review and investigation.
5} Appellant filed a timely appeal.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
6} Appellant assigns the following as trial court
[1.] APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE TRIAL COURT DENIED HIM
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AS WELL AS EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAW WHEN IT IGNORED OVERWHELEMING EVIDENCE THAT THE
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE COMITTED THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTING OFFICIAL
BUSSINESS, AND CONSPIRED TO DEPRIVE THE APPELLANT OF HIS
CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THUS VIOLATING