State v. Harding

[Cite as State v. Harding, 2023-Ohio-753.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

MADISON COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2022-09-019

: OPINION
- vs - 3/13/2023
:

KELLY L. HARDING, :

Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CRI20160016

Nicholas A. Adkins, Madison County Prosecuting Attorney, and Rachel M. Price, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Kelly L. Harding, pro se.

S. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Kelly L. Harding, appeals the decision of the Madison County Court

of Common Pleas denying his third successive petition for postconviction relief upon finding

his claims were once again barred by the doctrine of res judicata. For the reasons outlined

below, we affirm the trial court's decision.
 Madison CA2022-09-019

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On November 17, 2016, the trial court sentenced Harding to serve an

aggregate eight-year prison term after a jury found him guilty of one count of second-degree

felony possession of drugs and one count of fifth-degree felony possession of criminal tools.

The charges arose after a lawful traffic stop was effectuated on the vehicle Harding was

driving eastbound on Interstate 70 through Madison County, Ohio, during which troopers

with the Ohio State Highway Patrol located 123 pounds of marijuana inside the vehicle.

The pursuit, traffic stop, and subsequent search of the vehicle Harding had been driving

were all recorded and captured by the arresting trooper's dashboard cruiser camera.

{¶ 3} Harding directly appealed his conviction, raising four assignments of error for

review. Specifically, Harding challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress

and his eight-year prison sentence. Harding also argued that his conviction was not

supported by sufficient evidence and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

This court disagreed with each of Harding's claims set forth within his four assignments of

error and affirmed Harding's conviction in its entirety. State v. Harding, 12th Dist. Madison

No. CA2016-11-029, 2017-Ohio-8930. The Ohio Supreme Court thereafter denied

Harding's motion for leave to file a delayed appeal. State v. Harding, 152 Ohio St.3d 1440,

2018-Ohio-1600.

{¶ 4} On December 12, 2017, Harding filed his first petition for postconviction relief.

To support his first petition, Harding argued the video recording of the traffic stop presented

at both the suppression hearing and at trial was not the same video that was sent to his

expert, Primeau Forensics, for authentication, thereby depriving him of backseat telemetry

and audio evidence that could have supported his defense. Harding also argued the state

committed Brady violations, withheld payment to Primeau so that Primeau's final report was

not ready for trial, and never provided Harding with the raw data of the video recording

-2-
 Madison CA2022-09-019

despite his pro se requests.1 Harding further argued his trial counsel was ineffective for not

subpoenaing a certain witness, for allowing the trial to proceed without Primeau's final

report, for failing to compare the video recording of the traffic stop presented at the

suppression hearing and at trial with the video sent to Primeau, and for failing to investigate

backseat telemetry and audio evidence.

{¶ 5} On May 6, 2019, the trial court issued a decision denying Harding's first

postconviction relief petition on the basis of res judicata.2 In so doing, the trial court found

Harding's ineffective assistance of counsel claims could have been raised on direct appeal

because the evidence and exhibits Harding used to support his position "would have

reasonably been in his possession such that any argument could have been included" in

his direct appeal. The trial court also found Harding's claims that the video recording of the

traffic stop captured by the arresting trooper's dashboard cruiser camera had been altered

or tampered with could have likewise been raised on direct appeal because issues

regarding the allegedly altered video was "raised early in the process and continuously at

the trial court level." This included a pretrial hearing held in the spring of 2016 shortly after

Harding was indicted, as well as at another pretrial hearing held several months later in the

fall of that same year.

{¶ 6} Harding appealed the trial court's decision denying his initial petition for

1. The term Brady refers to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963), a case in which the United
States Supreme Court held that prosecutors have a duty to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence to
criminal defendants.

2. We note that, initially, the trial court summarily denied Harding's petition without a hearing and without
issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law. Harding then appealed and we dismissed the appeal pursuant
to the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217 (1982), which held that a judgment
entry denying postconviction relief without findings of fact and conclusions of law was not a final appealable
order. State v. Harding, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2018-03-008, 2018-Ohio-5051. The Ohio Supreme Court
subsequently overruled Mapson upon finding that, "pursuant to R.C. 2953.23(B), a judgment granting or
denying postconviction relief is a final, appealable order. If a trial court errs by failing to issue statutorily
required findings of fact and conclusions of law, the petitioner may obtain relief by raising that issue in an
appeal from the trial court's judgment." State ex rel. Penland v. Dinkelacker, 162 Ohio St.3d 59, 2020-Ohio-
3774, ¶ 28.
-3-
 Madison CA2022-09-019

postconviction relief. In support of his appeal, Harding argued the trial court erred by finding

his claims were barred by res judicata because they involved newly discovered evidence

that was outside the record. This court disagreed and upheld the trial court's decision in

full. State v. Harding, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2019-05-012, 2020-Ohio-1067. In so

holding, this court noted that:

[w]ithin Harding's direct appeal, this court addressed the
dashcam video issue, and also determined that Harding was not
denied effective assistance of counsel. Harding argued issues
related to the dashcam video multiple times before the trial and
during it. The dashcam video issue in no way constituted newly
discovered evidence or provided Harding with an issue that was
not or could not have been argued on direct appeal. Harding
has argued the dashcam video to the trial court and this court,
and has simply "re-packaged" those arguments by virtue of his
petition for postconviction relief.

Id. at ¶ 11. This court further noted that "[t]he information and the fact that he was not

provided a final report from the expert was obviously known to Harding, as his trial occurred

without such report being made." Id. at ¶ 12.

{¶ 7} On September 24, 2021, Harding filed his second petition for postconviction

relief. To support his second petition, Harding argued his conviction should be vacated in

accordance with Civ.R. 60(B)(5) because his trial counsel engaged in inexcusable neglect

and because both his trial counsel and the state had committed fraud upon the court. More

specifically, Harding argued the state acted fraudulently by presenting an altered video

recording of the traffic stop at trial because the video that was sent to Primeau, which had

backseat telemetry and audio, was not the same video that was presented at trial. Harding

also argued his trial counsel acted fraudulently when his counsel advised the trial court on

the morning of the trial that counsel had spoken to Primeau and that Primeau had expressed

an opinion about the video recording. Harding further argued that his trial counsel's failure

to compare the video recordings and request that Primeau do the same, counsel's refusal

-4-
 Madison CA2022-09-019

to file a motion to continue the trial to compare the video recordings, and counsel's failure

to contact a certain witness, constituted inexcusable neglect.

{¶ 8} On October 14, 2021, the trial court denied Harding's second petition for

postconviction relief upon again finding Harding's claims were barred by the doctrine of res

judicata. The trial court reached this decision based on its finding Harding had "raise[d] no

new issues that have not been litigated on appeal or in his first post-conviction relief motion."

Harding appealed that decision and this court affirmed. State v. Harding, 12th Dist. Madison

No. CA2021-10-018, 2022-Ohio-3595. In so holding, this court stated:

[Harding] argued issues related to the dashcam video multiple
times before the trial, during trial, and in his initial [postconviction
relief] petition. Likewise, [Harding] argued issues regarding the
lack of a final report by Primeau in his initial [postconviction
relief] petition. Primeau's email to appellant's girlfriend, written
six days after the trial, precedes Exhibit E, an October 2017
affidavit from [Harding's] girlfriend that appellant submitted with
his second [postconviction relief] petition. In her affidavit,
[Harding's] girlfriend asserts that Primeau's final report was
never prepared and that she "personally spoke with [Primeau]
via telephone and emails several times." Exhibit E duplicates
an exhibit attached to [Harding's] initial [postconviction relief]
petition. Therefore, Primeau's email is not newly-discovered
evidence and [Harding] was not unavoidably prevented from
discovering facts necessary for his fraud-upon-the-court claim
for relief. As this issue could have been raised in [Harding's]
initial [postconviction relief] petition, res judicata bars [Harding]
from raising this issue. Res judicata bars a petitioner from "re-
packaging" evidence or issues that either were or could have
been raised.

(Internal citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 20.

{¶ 9} On December 30, 2021, Harding filed his third petition for postconviction

relief.3 To support his third petition, Harding argued the same essential claims that he had

advanced previously at trial, on direct appeal, and/or within his first and second petitions for

3. Harding filed his third petition for postconviction relief while his appeal from the trial court's denial of his
second postconviction relief petition was still pending before this court.
-5-
 Madison CA2022-09-019

postconviction relief. This includes, most notably, purported issues related to the alleged

alteration of the video recording of the traffic stop captured by the arresting trooper's

dashboard cruiser camera. Because of this, on August 16, 2022, the trial court issued a

decision denying Harding's third petition for postconviction relief upon once again finding

Harding's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In so doing, the trial court

noted that each of the issues Harding had raised within his petition had "already been or

could have been fully litigated by Mr. Harding while represented by counsel either before

the judgment of conviction or on direct appeal from that judgment." The trial court also

noted that "the issue of video altering has been litigated in this case from the beginning

through multiple attorneys, from [Harding], through appeals, and through multiple post-

conviction relief motions." This was in addition to the trial court noting that "[Primeau] was

the defense expert in this case notably meaning that the evidence at issue has been in the

possession of the defense from the very beginning," and that "[t]he raw data and the video

presented at trial has been in the possession of the defense from a time prior to the actual

jury trial and well before any appeals were filed in this matter."

Harding's Appeal and Two Assignments of Error

{¶ 10} On September 6, 2022, Harding filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's

decision denying his third successive petition for postconviction relief on the basis of res

judicata. Harding's appeal was submitted to this court for review on February 15, 2023.

Harding's appeal now properly before this court for decision, Harding has raised two

assignments of error for this court's consideration.

{¶ 11} Assignment of Error No. 1:

{¶ 12} [THE TRIAL COURT'S] DECISION IS ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND

UNCONSCIONABLE, WHEN WITHOUT HOLDING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, [THE

TRIAL COURT] OVERRULED HARDING'S "PETITION TO VACATE OR SET ASIDE

-6-
 Madison CA2022-09-019

JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION" BASED UPON "FRAUD UPON THE COURT PURSUANT

TO [CIV.R.] 60(B)(5) DUE TO INTENTIONAL, FRAUDULENT, NONDISCLOSURE

DURING DISCOVERY, NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE AFTER TRIAL AND DIRECT

APPEAL.

{¶ 13} In his first assignment of error, Harding argues the trial court erred by denying

his third successive postconviction relief petition upon finding his claims were once again

barred on the basis of res judicata. However, because this court has already rejected

substantially similar, if not outright identical, claims to those Harding raised within that

petition, the trial court did not err by denying Harding's most recent petition for

postconviction relief on the basis of res judicata without first holding an evidentiary hearing

on the matter. This is because, as is well established, "a petition for postconviction relief

may be dismissed without an evidentiary hearing when the claims raised are barred by the

doctrine of res judicata." State v. Ruggles, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2021-03-023, 2022-

Ohio-1804, ¶ 22, citing State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967); see, e.g., State v. King,

12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2013-11-199 and CA2014-06-138, 2014-Ohio-5393, ¶ 34 (trial

court did not err in denying appellant's petition for postconviction relief without first holding

an evidentiary hearing where appellant's petition was barred by res judicata and otherwise

unsupported by the record).

{¶ 14} In this case, just as he has done previously, Harding is doing nothing more

than "re-packaging" evidence or issues that he either did raise or could have raised

previously. This includes Harding's claims related to the "raw data" taken from the video

recording of the traffic stop captured by the arresting trooper's dashboard cruiser camera.

This court has already advised Harding that res judicata bars a petitioner from "re-

packaging" evidence or issues that either were or could have been raised previously. See

Harding, 2022-Ohio-3595, at ¶ 20, citing State v. Brown, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2019-04-

-7-
 Madison CA2022-09-019

006, 2020-Ohio-971, ¶ 50. This court has, in fact, advised Harding of this twice. See also

Harding, 2020-Ohio-1067, at ¶ 7, citing State v. Rose, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-03-

050, 2012-Ohio-5957, ¶ 20. Therefore, because the issues Harding raised within his third

successive postconviction relief petition are still and always will be barred by res judicata,

the trial court did not err by denying Harding's petition without first holding an evidentiary

hearing on the matter. Accordingly, finding no error in the trial court's decision, Harding's

first assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled.

{¶ 15} Assignment of Error No. 2:

{¶ 16} [THE TRIAL COURT'S] DECISION IS BIASED, ARBITRARY,

UNREASONABLE AND UNCONSCIONABLE, WHEN [THE TRIAL COURT] RULED THAT

THE COURT HAS DISCRETION TO ALLOW FILINGS BEYOND THE DATE SET BY THE

COURT, WHILE OVERLOOKING THE PERTINENT PART OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED ON MARCH 4, 2022, NAMELY THAT: THE STATE

FILED A BRIEF BUT LEFT THE DATE BLANK. THE STATE'S BRIEF SHALL NOT BE

CONSIDERED AS IT WAS FILED WITH AN INCOMPLETE PROOF OF SERVICE. THE

STATE'S BRIEF WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CIV.R. 5(B)(4).4

{¶ 17} In his second assignment of error, Harding argues the trial court erred by

accepting the state's memorandum in opposition to his third petition for postconviction relief

because the state left the date on its certificate of service blank contrary to the requirements

set forth in Crim.R. 49(C).5 However, although we agree with Harding's claim that the state's

4. We note the reference Harding makes within this assignment of error to a motion for summary judgment
he filed with the trial court on March 4, 2022. Harding did file such a motion, which the trial court subsequently
denied. Harding's notice of appeal, however, expressly states that his appeal is a challenge to just the trial
court's August 16, 2022 decision denying his third successive petition for postconviction relief that he filed
with the trial court on December 30, 2021. The trial court's decision denying Harding's motion for summary
judgment is therefore not currently before this court as Harding did not appeal from that decision.

5. Crim.R. 49(C) is the corresponding criminal rule to Civ.R. 5(B)(4), both of which require the necessary
certificate of service to state the date and the manner of service being performed.
-8-
 Madison CA2022-09-019

certificate of service did not include a date, any error the trial court may have made by

accepting the state's filing was harmless given the state's brief two-page memorandum did

nothing more than advise the trial court that Harding's arguments were barred by the

doctrine of res judicata. The record is clear that the trial court did not rely upon the state's

memorandum when reaching that same conclusion. The record instead plainly indicates

that the trial court conducted a thorough review of the entire record prior to issuing its

decision in this case. This is evidenced by the detail the trial court included within its 12-

page decision, as well as the trial court's express statement that, in order to put Harding's

arguments into their "proper perspective," it was "necessary to review the history of the

case" so that Harding's arguments could be analyzed in the "proper context." Therefore,

because Crim.R. 52(A) instructs this court to disregard any error, defect, irregularity, or

variance that does not affect substantial rights, Harding's second assignment of error also

lacks merit and is overruled.

Conclusion

{¶ 18} For the reasons outlined above, and finding no merit to any of the arguments

raised by Harding herein in support of his two assignments of error, the trial court's decision

denying Harding's third successive petition for postconviction relief on the basis of res

judicata is affirmed.

{¶ 19} Judgment affirmed.

HENDRICKSON and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.

-9-