[Cite as State v. Gomez, 2020-Ohio-835.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals Nos. L-19-1114
L-19-1119
Appellee
Trial Court No. CR0201601548
v.
Antwine Gomez DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: March 6, 2020
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Antwine Gomez, pro se.
*****
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellant, Antwine Gomez, appeals from the
May 8, 2019 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition
for postconviction relief.1 For the reasons which follow, we affirm.
1
Appellant’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by this court in State v. Gomez,
6th Dist. Lucas No. L-17-1130, 2019-Ohio-576.
{¶ 2} On appeal, appellant asserts a single assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF
APPELLANT WHEN IT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT HAD
AN ARMED UNIFORMED DEPUTY TO ESCORT AND SIT WITH
APPELANT [SIC] ON THE WITNESS STAND VIOLATING HIS
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL SECURED BY THE 6TH AND 14TH
AMENDMENT [SIC] ERODING HIS PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE.
{¶ 3} Appellant filed a timely petition for postconviction relief on August 2, 2018.
He asserted that having an armed, uniformed deputy escort and stand by defendant while
he was on the witness stand eroded his presumption of innocence protected by the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution,
Section 16, Article 1. He further asserts there was no scientific evidence to support the
charges and the jury missed certain exculpatory evidence because of the deputy’s
presence. Appellant did not provide any legal support for his claim.
{¶ 4} In its May 8, 2019 judgment, the trial court found that the mere presence of
the deputy does not generally deny due process, State v. Houston, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
60552, 1992 WL 181669, *3 (July 30, 1992), and appellant failed to assert anything to
distinguish his case from the Houston case. Appellant appeals.
{¶ 5} In review of the trial court’s ruling, we find that we can affirm the trial
court’s judgment without reaching the merits of the petition. A trial court may
2.
summarily dismiss a petition for postconviction relief if it finds that the petition alleges
constitutional issues that “* * * have already been or could have been fully litigated by
the prisoner while represented by counsel, either before his judgment of conviction or on
direct appeal from that judgment, and thus have been adjudicated against him.” State v.
Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraphs two, three, seven, eight,
and nine of the syllabus. Accord State ex rel. Parker v. Russo, 131 Ohio St.3d 175, 2012-
Ohio-541, 962 N.E.2d 795, ¶ 1. The issues raised in this case could have been raised on
direct appeal but were not. Therefore, we find the petition is barred under the doctrine of
res judicata.
{¶ 6} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is found not well-taken.
{¶ 7} Having found that the trial court did not commit error prejudicial to
appellant and that substantial justice has been done, the judgment of the Lucas County
Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal
pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
3.
State v. Gomez
C.A. Nos. L-19-1114
L-19-1119
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J.
_______________________________
Christine E. Mayle, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
4.