[Cite as State v. Matson, 2017-Ohio-7137.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P. J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-
Case No. CT2017-0026
TIMOTHY R. MATSON
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. CR2016-0053
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 7, 2017
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
D. MICHAEL HADDOX TIMOTHY R. MATSON
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY PRO SE
GERALD V. ANDERSON II NOBLE CORR. INSTITUTION
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 15708 McConnelsville Road
27 North Fifth Street, PO Box 189 Caldwell, Ohio 43724
Zanesville, Ohio 43702-0189
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0026 2
Wise, John, J.
{¶1} Appellant Timothy R. Matson appeals the March 14, 2017, decision of the
Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas denying his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.
{¶2} Appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶3} On February 3, 2016, Appellant, Timothy R. Matson, was indicted on Count
One: Possession of Drugs (Heroin) with a Major Drug Offender specification and a Firearm
specification, a felony of the first degree; Count Two: Possession of Drugs
(Methamphetamine) with a firearm specification, a felony of the second degree; Count
Three: Possession of Drugs (Marijuana) with a firearm specification, a felony of the fifth
degree; Count Four: Having a Weapon While Under Disability, a felony of the third degree.
{¶4} On August 23, 2016, counsel for Appellant, Attorney John Graceffo, filed a
motion to withdraw as counsel of record. In his motion, counsel stated that he was informed
by Appellant on August 17, 2016, that he had new counsel.
{¶5} On August 25, 2016, Appellant filed a motion to suppress.
{¶6} By Judgment Entry filed August 25, 2016, the trial court denied
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
{¶7} On August 26, 2016, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charges
contained in the Indictment.
{¶8} By Judgment Entry filed August 31, 2016, the trial court sentenced
Appellant as follows:
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0026 3
Count One: eleven (11) years and a mandatory fine of
$10,000.00 and a mandatory one-year sentence on the Firearm
Specification;
Count Two: a mandatory two (2) year sentence with a mandatory
fine of $7,500.00 and a mandatory one-year sentence on the Firearm
Specification.
Count Three: a stated prison term of twelve (12) months and a
mandatory one-year sentence on the Firearm Specification.
Count Four: a stated prison term of twenty-four (24) months.
{¶9} The trial court ordered the sentences for Counts One and Two to be
served consecutively and the sentences for Counts Three and Four to be served
concurrently with each other and with Counts One and Two. The firearm specifications
were to run consecutively, as required by law. Appellant was given an aggregate
sentence of fourteen (14) years.
{¶10} Appellant did not file a direct appeal from his sentence and/or
conviction.
{¶11} On March 3, 2017, Appellant filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief
arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to file a timely motion
to suppress.
{¶12} On March 8, 2017, the State filed its Opposition to Defendant’s Petition
for Post-Conviction Relief.
{¶13} On March 14, 2017, the trial court denied Appellant’s Petition for Post-
Conviction Relief.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0026 4
{¶14} Appellant now appeals, setting forth the following assignments of error:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶15} “I. DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS DEFICIENT IN FAILING TO FILE A TIMELY
MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE WHEN COUNSEL LEARNED THAT
DETECTIVE WILHITE'S SUBMITTED A [sic] AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF A SEARCH
WARRANT THAT WAS RIDDLED WITH INTENTIONAL OR RECKLESS FALSEHOODS
WHICH DEFICIENT REPRESENTATION PREJUDICED APPELLANT.
{¶16} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO
GRANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON THE GROUNDS OF RES JUDICATA.”
I., II,
{¶17} In his Two Assignments of Error, Appellant argues that he was denied the
effective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court should have granted him an
evidentiary hearing on said claim. We disagree.
{¶18} Upon review, we find Appellant's arguments are barred under the doctrine
of res judicata. As stated by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d
175 (1967), paragraphs eight and nine of the syllabus, the doctrine of res judicata is
applicable to petitions for post-conviction relief. The Perry court explained the doctrine at
180–181 as follows:
Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars
a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and
litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from that judgment, any defense
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0026 5
or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised
by the defendant at trial, which resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on
an appeal from that judgment.
{¶19} In reviewing Appellant's petition for post-conviction relief, we find the
arguments therein could have been raised on direct appeal. We further find that Appellant’s
arguments do not raise any issues that are dependent upon evidence outside the trial court
record.
{¶20} Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's petition.
{¶21} Appellant’s Assignments of Error I and II are denied.
{¶22} For the foregoing reason, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of
Muskingum County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By: Wise, John, J.
Delaney, P. J., and
Baldwin, J., concur.
JWW/d 0731