State v. Menifield

[Cite as State v. Menifield, 2026-Ohio-4136.]
IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO
Plaintiff - Appellee
-vs-
MAJOR ESSEX MENIFIELD
Defendant - Appellant
Case No. 2025CA00137
Opinion and Judgment Entry
Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2022CR2397
Judgment: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry: October 20, 2026
BEFORE: William B. Hoffman; Craig R. Baldwin; Robert G. Montgomery, Judges
APPEARANCES: Kyle L. Stone, Prosecuting Attorney, Stark County, Ohio, Vicki L.
DeSantis, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee; Major Essex Menifield,
Pro se.
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Major Essix Menifield appeals the September 17, 2025
judgment entered by the Stark County Common Pleas Court denying his September 20, 2024
petition for post-conviction relief. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} On December 16, 2022, Appellant Major Essix Menifield was indicted by the
Stark County Grand Jury on two counts of domestic violence, one count of intimidation of a
witness, and one count of felonious assault. The domestic violence charges were classified as

felonies of the third-degree based on two prior convictions: one of domestic violence, and one
of aggravated trespass in which the victim was a family or household member.
{¶3} The victim in this case was Appellant’s girlfriend of approximately three years.
On August 12, 2022, the victim called 9-1-1 and reported she and Appellant had an altercation
over a text message, during which Appellant grabbed her face, broke her glasses, poked at her
face, and threatened to kill her or her daughter.
{¶4} On December 3, 2022, the victim went to Wal-Mart while Appellant was asleep
on her couch. When she returned to the apartment, an argument ensued and Appellant hit
her in the mouth. (See State v. Major Essix Menifield, 2024-Ohio-2981, ¶ 2 (5th Dist.)).
{¶5} The case proceeded to jury trial in the Stark County Common Pleas Court. The
State dismissed the charge of intimidation of a witness. The jury found Appellant guilty on
the December 3, 2022 domestic violence count, including two prior conviction specifications,
and guilty of felonious assault as to the December 3, 2022 incident. The jury found Appellant
not guilty on the August 12, 2022, domestic violence charge.
{¶6} The trial court convicted Appellant in accordance with the jury's verdict, and
found the convictions merged for sentencing. The trial court sentenced Appellant on the
felonious assault conviction to a term of incarceration of six to nine years. (See September 21,
2023 Judgment of Conviction and Sentence).
{¶7} Appellant filed a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence, which this Court
upheld by Opinion and Judgment Entry filed August 5, 2024, in State v. Major Essix Menifield,
2024-Ohio-2981 (5th Dist.).
{¶8} On September 20, 2024, Appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. In
his petition Appellant claimed his trial counsel was ineffective: (1) in failing to call or

subpoena an alibi witness, and (2) in failing to investigate the nurse who treated the victim
and testified at trial, claiming she was related to the victim.
{¶9} On September 27, 2024, the State of Ohio filed a response to Appellant’s
petition for post-conviction relief.
{¶10} On October 8, 2024, Appellant filed an application to re-open his direct appeal
pursuant to App.R. 26(B). In his application, Appellant argued: (1) appellate counsel was
ineffective for failing to raise the issue the trial court failed to provide him with the
notifications required by statute for imposing a non-definite felony sentence pursuant to the
Reagan Tokes law; and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to subpoena an alibi
witness to testify on behalf of Appellant at trial.
{¶11} On October 9, 2024, Appellant filed “Petitioner/Defendant’s Objection to the
State’s Response to Petition for Post Conviction Relief.”
{¶12} On November 15, 2024, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Supreme
Court of Ohio, which declined jurisdiction. See 05/13/2025 Case Announcements 2025-Ohio-
1682.
{¶13} On November 20, 2024, this Court granted Appellant’s application for
reopening only as to the issue of failure to provide Appellant with mandatory sentencing
notifications under the Reagan Tokes law, vacated its August 5, 2024 judgment entry and
remanded the matter for resentencing. As to the alibi issue, this Court found:
The record before this Court on appeal does not establish the existence
of an alibi witness, nor does the record establish what a potential alibi witness
would have testified to if subpoenaed by counsel. As such, Appellant has not

demonstrated from the record trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call an
alibi witness, and Appellant has not demonstrated appellate counsel was
ineffective for failing to raise this assignment of error on appeal.
{¶14} (November 20, 2024 Judgment Entry at 5) .
{¶15} On December 16, 2024, the trial court re-sentenced Appellant in accordance
with the Reagan Tokes law.
{¶16} On January 13, 2025, following resentencing, Appellant filed a second notice
of appeal (2025 CA 00005). That appeal was initially dismissed on March 14, 2025, for failure
by Appellant to file a Docketing Statement along with an attached time-stamped copy of the
judgment entry being appealed.
{¶17} On March 28, 2025, Appellant filed an application for reconsideration,
{¶18} On April 30, 2025, this court granted Appellant’s application for
reconsideration after it was discovered Appellant was only orally sentenced in December and
the trial court did not issue a sentencing entry until after Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was
filed. We found the appeal was a premature notice of appeal. See App.R. 4(C)
{¶19} The appeal was ultimately dismissed by this Court on July 18, 2025, for failure
by Appellant to file a brief.
{¶20} On September 10, 2025, Appellant filed a motion for judgment on outstanding
pleadings with the trial court.
{¶21} By Judgment Entry filed September 17, 2025, the trial court denied Appellant’s
petition for post-conviction relief.

{¶22} Appellant now appeals the September 17, 2025 judgment entry, assigning the
following error for review:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE POST-
CONVICTION PETITION WITHOUT FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
I.
Post-Conviction Relief
{¶23} Pursuant to R.C. §2953.21(A)(1)(a), a convicted defendant who asserts a denial
or infringement of constitutional rights sufficient to render his conviction void or voidable
may file a petition asking the court that imposed sentence to vacate the judgment or sentence
or to grant other relief.
{¶24} A petition for post-conviction relief is intended as a means to reach
constitutional issues which would otherwise be impossible to reach because the evidence
supporting those issues is not contained in the record of the petitioner's criminal conviction.
State v. Smith, 2017-Ohio-2616, ¶ 13. A petition for post-conviction relief is a civil collateral
attack on a criminal judgment, not an appeal of that judgment. State v. Calhoun, 1999-Ohio-
102. A petition for post-conviction relief does not, therefore, provide a petitioner with a
second opportunity to litigate his conviction, nor is the petitioner automatically entitled to an
evidentiary hearing on the petition. State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107, 110 (1980), State v.
Lewis, 2008-Ohio-3113, ¶ 8 (5th Dist.).

{¶25} A trial court's decision to grant or deny a post-conviction petition filed pursuant
to R.C. §2953.21 should be upheld absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Gondor, 2006-Ohio-
6679, ¶ 58; State v. Morris, 2026-Ohio-2576, ¶ 40 (5th Dist.). "But whether a trial court has
subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain an untimely, second, or successive petition for
postconviction relief is a question of law, which we review de novo." Id., citing State v.
Apanovitch, 2018-Ohio-4744, ¶ 24.
{¶26} R.C. §2953.21(A)(2)(a) requires a petition for post-conviction relief "be filed no
later than three hundred sixty-five days after the date on which the trial transcript is filed in
the court of appeals in the direct appeal of the judgment of conviction or adjudication." State
v. Nelson, 2024-Ohio-1792, ¶ 8 (5th Dist.).
{¶27} Pursuant to R.C. §2953.21, when a trial court denies a petition for post-
conviction relief without a hearing, the trial court shall make and file findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The findings of fact and conclusions of law should be explicit enough to
give the appellate court a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court's decision and to
enable it to determine the grounds on which the trial court reached its decision. State v. Jacks,
5th Dist. Licking No. 99 CA 113, (Feb. 29, 2000), citing State v. Lester, 41 Ohio St.2d 51, 322
N.E.2d 656 (1975). The purpose of requiring the trial court to include findings of fact and
conclusions of law in its judgment entry is to sufficiently apprise both the petitioner and the
potential appellate court of the grounds for its decision. State v. Staats, 2016-Ohio-2921 (5th
Dist.).
{¶28} However, the Supreme Court has held a trial court "need not issue findings of
fact and conclusions of law when it dismisses an untimely [post-conviction-relief] petition."
State ex rel. Kimbrough v. Greene, 2002-Ohio-7042. If a petition for post-conviction relief is

untimely, the trial court had no clear duty to issue findings of fact or conclusions of law. Dillon
v. Cottrill, 2015-Ohio-1785 (5th Dist.). Further, a trial court "has no duty to issue findings of
fact and conclusions of law on successive or untimely petitions for post-conviction
relief." State ex rel. George v. Burnside, 2008-Ohio-2702.
{¶29} Upon review of the docket, the trial transcript in Appellant’s direct appeal was
filed on January 8, 2024. The deadline for filing a petition for post-conviction relief was
therefore January 8, 2025. Appellant filed his petition in this case on September 20, 2024. The
trial court never ruled on the petition. Appellant then filed a motion on September 17, 2025,
requesting the trial court rule on his outstanding motions. While the State characterizes this
most recent motion as an untimely second, successive petition for post-conviction relief, we
do not. (Appellee’s brief at 2, 4). We likewise find no support for the State’s assertion the trial
court treated the motion as a second petition for post-conviction relief. (Appellee’s brief at 2).
{¶30} R.C. §2953.21(H) provides in pertinent part:
(H) If the court does not find grounds for granting relief, it shall make
and file findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall enter judgment
denying relief on the petition. If the petition was filed by a person who has been
sentenced to death, the findings of fact and conclusions of law shall state
specifically the reasons for the denial of relief on the petition and of each claim
it contains....
{¶31} State v. Forrester, 2024-Ohio-5724, ¶ 33 (5th Dist.).

{¶32} Upon review, we note Appellant’s petition was not supported by any affidavits
in support from himself, trial counsel or a potential alibi witness.
{¶33} In its judgment entry, the trial court found:
… Petitioner’s Motion fails to set forth sufficient operative facts, fails to
substantiate any grounds for relief for violations of constitutional rights,
and attempts to revisit issues barred by res judicata.
Accordingly, Defendant-Petitioner’s motion for Post-conviction
Relief is DENIED.
{¶34} (September 17, 2025 Judgment Entry).
{¶35} While the trial court did not use specific headings entitled "findings of fact" and
"conclusions of law," its Judgment Entry did in fact contain the requisite information and
analysis. Moreover, the trial court was not required to separately state with specificity the
reasons for its denial as to each and every one of the claims contained in the appellant's
Petition; such specificity is only required in cases where the petitioner has been sentenced to
death, and the appellant herein was not. State v. Forrester, 2024-Ohio-5724, ¶ 34 (5th Dist.).
{¶36} Based on the failure of Appellant to provide any supporting documentation for
his petition, we find the trial court’s determination Appellant’s petition “fails to set forth
sufficient operative facts and failed to substantiate any grounds for relief for violations of
constitutional rights” satisfied the obligation to provide petitioner and this Court with the
grounds for its decision.

{¶37} Appellant also claims he was entitled to counsel. In State v. Crowder (1991), 60
Ohio St.3d 151, 152, the Ohio Supreme Court held a post-conviction petitioner has no
constitutional right to counsel.
{¶38} Based on the foregoing, Appellant’s assignment of error is overruled.
{¶39} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
{¶40} Costs to Appellant.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Baldwin, J. and
Montgomery, J. concur.