|
State Files Response To Second Schwieterman Appeal |
|
|
|
Thursday, 15 October 2009 |
By MIKE
BURKHOLDER
Managing Editor
CELINA — Mercer County Prosecuting Attorneys Wednesday filed their response to an appeal filed by a Chickasaw man seeking post-conviction relief in his case.
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Matt Fox rejected arguments made by Columbus-based attorney Eric Allen regarding an appeal filed on behalf of Nicholas Schwieterman in the Third District Court of Appeals. Allen is seeking a hearing that Mercer County Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Ingraham rejected in July.
Allen unveiled a six-point argument in his brief, including his client was provided with inadequate representation, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, destruction of evidence and that Schwieterman is innocent of the crime. Fox rejected the claims in his brief.
“The trial court properly dismissed defendant Schwieterman’s petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing,” Fox wrote. “The evidence submitted by defendant Schwieterman included (the) defendant’s self-serving affidavit, absurd affidavits of his family members stating irrelevant opinions and not relevant facts or evidence, false allegations of prior counsel and speculative, yet creative, imaginary conclusions of defendant’s expert. Collectively, all claimed defendant was innocent and blamed Jordan Moeller for the crash and for Jordan Moeller’s own death and the deaths of his three friends. All of this speculation was appropriately rejected by the trial court.”
Fox said Ingraham was correct in rejecting the request because Schwieterman failed to assert any facts of the case that would require a hearing.
“By looking at the petition, supporting affidavits and all of the files and records pertaining to the proceedings, there was clearly no basis for granting a hearing in this case and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition,” Fox wrote.
Fox also dismissed Allen’s claims that evidence was destroyed. Allen, in his brief, argued air bag sensors were destroyed and that Schwieterman’s vehicle was traveling at 12 mph, while the vehicle driven by Moeller was traveling 84 mph.
“(The) defendant did not then, nor now, possess a defense in this matter that is based upon evidence, but merely now has claimed a defense based upon supposition and speculation, not fact,” Fox wrote.
“The trial court properly found that the claimed speed of the vehicle driven by Jordan Moeller was irrelevant given the stipulation of facts in the case. As such, any claimed bad faith destruction of evidence was also irrelevant.”
Fox also rejected Allen’s notion that Schwieterman is actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted.
“The trial court spent significant time comparing the stipulation of facts in this case with Schwieterman’s claims,” Fox wrote.
“The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected Schwieterman’s claim of actual innocence.”
Lastly, Fox said Schwieterman failed to offer any valid arguments in support of the request.
“(The) defendant proffered nothing to the trial court requiring post-conviction relief and nothing requiring the court to conduct a hearing,” Fox wrote. “As none of the claims of defendant Schwieterman were valid, none were supported by actual evidence and none compelled post-conviction relief, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition without a hearing. Accordingly, the state of Ohio respectfully requests this court affirm the judgement of the trial court.”
The matter is pending in the Third District Court of Appeals.
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 02 November 2009 )
|
