State v. McCollum, Unpublished Decision (7-14-1997)
State v. McCollum, Unpublished Decision (7-14-1997)
Opinion of the Court
OPINION
On July 8, 1992, defendant-appellant, Manion McCollum, was indicted on two counts of aggravated drug trafficking in violation of R.C.On September 20, 1996, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to R.C.
Assignment of Error No. 1:
TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING UPON THE APPELLANT'S POSTCONVICTION PETITION WHERE APPELLANT'S BURDEN IS ONLY TO ALLEGE FACTS WHICH ARE SUFFICIENTLY OPERATIVE TO DEMONSTRATE HIS CONVICTION WAS VOID OR VOIDABLE BASED ON A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION, AND PROVIDE EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS WHICH SUPPORT THOSE FACTS DEHORS THE RECORD OF TRIAL.
Assignment of Error No. 2:
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE NO MATERIAL ISSUE OF FACT REMAINED TO BE LITIGATED PURSUANT TO CIVIL RULE 56 AND APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT IN HIS FAVOR AS A MATTER OF LAW.
In his first assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his petition for postconviction relief without first holding an evidentiary hearing to further develop the facts giving rise to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. A hearing is not automatically required whenever a petition for postconviction relief is filed. State v. Strutton (1988),
The only evidence submitted by appellant which supports his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is his own affidavit in which he makes several self-serving statements which impugn trial counsel's performance. Such evidence by itself is insufficient to mandate a hearing or to justify granting postconviction relief under R.C.
In his second assignment of error, appellant contends that he is entitled to summary judgment on his petition for postconviction relief because the state did not file a memorandum in opposition to his motion for summary judgment. We disagree. A litigant is not entitled to summary judgment by default under Civ.R. 56(C) simply because the nonmoving party elects not to file a memorandum in opposition or other responsive pleading. Morris v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. (1988),
YOUNG, P.J., and WALSH, J., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.