Background: Johnathan D. Kozee was convicted of felonious assault following a jury trial in the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas. The jury found Kozee guilty of felonious assault after he attacked James Liles, which resulted in Liles’ hospitalization and later death. Kozee was sentenced to a minimum of 8 years and a maximum of 12 years in prison. Kozee appealed his conviction and sentence, raising four assignments of error, which included claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficient evidence, and failure to provide required notifications under the Reagan Tokes Act during sentencing.
Legal Issue: Kozee raised four issues on appeal. The first assignment of error argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request jury instructions on the lesser-included offense of assault and for failing to file a motion to sever his trial from his co-defendant, Christopher Gay. The second and third assignments of error challenged the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence supporting his felonious assault conviction. Lastly, the fourth assignment of error claimed that the trial court failed to provide the mandatory Reagan Tokes Act notifications at sentencing.
Court of Appeals Analysis: The first issue on appeal concerned ineffective assistance of counsel. Kozee contended that his attorney failed to request a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of assault and did not file a motion to sever the trial from his co-defendant, Gay. The court found no deficiency in Kozee’s trial counsel’s performance. The court ruled that the failure to request a jury instruction on assault was a strategic decision, given the evidence supporting a felonious assault conviction. Furthermore, the court concluded that the decision not to sever the trials did not prejudice Kozee, as both defendants presented the same defense strategy.
The second and third issues on appeal challenged the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. Kozee argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court disagreed, finding that the evidence, including witness testimony and physical evidence, was sufficient to support the conviction. The jury, in its role as the trier of fact, was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses, even though there were some inconsistencies in their testimony.
The fourth issue on appeal involved the trial court’s failure to provide the mandatory Reagan Tokes Act notifications at sentencing. The court agreed with Kozee, noting that the trial court’s failure to notify him during the sentencing hearing rendered the sentence contrary to law. The court remanded the case for resentencing to ensure compliance with the Reagan Tokes Act.
Conclusion: The appellate court affirmed Kozee’s conviction for felonious assault but remanded the case for resentencing, requiring the trial court to provide the necessary Reagan Tokes Act notifications during the sentencing hearing.
State v. Kozee, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 22CA3998, 2025-Ohio-364
Issue on Appeal: Dismissing Petition for Post Conviction Relief
Background: In 2006, a jury found Emerson Anderson guilty on multiple charges, including four counts of rape, three counts of gross sexual imposition, and one count of menacing by stalking. Anderson was sentenced to life terms for the rape convictions and a one-year sentence for menacing by stalking. He appealed the convictions, which were affirmed. He later filed a petition for postconviction relief, citing ineffective assistance of counsel related to a speedy trial waiver. This petition was denied by the trial court, and his appeal was dismissed due to a failure to file a brief.
In 2024, Anderson filed a subsequent petition for postconviction relief, claiming he was unaware that a speedy trial waiver had been filed in his case. He argued that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering this fact sooner due to limited access to records and assistance. The State opposed the petition, noting it was untimely and should be dismissed for failing to meet jurisdictional requirements under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) and (b). The trial court dismissed the petition based solely on the doctrine of res judicata, without addressing whether Anderson met the statutory requirements.
Legal Issue: The primary issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred by dismissing Anderson’s petition for postconviction relief without first determining if he met the jurisdictional requirements under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) and (b) for an untimely and successive petition.
Court of Appeals Analysis: The court determined that under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), a trial court can only consider an untimely or successive petition for postconviction relief if the petitioner meets two requirements: (a) the petitioner was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which the petition is based, or a new federal or state right was recognized that applies retroactively, and (b) the petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found them guilty of the offense. The court found that the trial court failed to first determine whether Anderson met these jurisdictional requirements before considering the petition’s merits.
The appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court’s decision, instructing it to first evaluate whether Anderson satisfied the jurisdictional requirements for an untimely and successive petition. If Anderson failed to meet these requirements, the trial court would lack jurisdiction to entertain the petition and must dismiss it. If Anderson met the requirements, the trial court could then proceed to address whether the claims were barred by res judicata.
Conclusion: The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, specifically for the trial court to determine if Anderson met the jurisdictional requirements for his untimely and successive postconviction relief petition.
State v. Anderson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 31182, 2025-Ohio-629