Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Derrick L. Cook - Ohio Death Row

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,534

    Derrick L. Cook - Ohio Death Row




    Summary of Offense:

    On October 28, 1989, Cook murdered 68-year-old Frank Shorter in an abandoned building on Seitz Street in Cincinnati. Mr. Shorter was the manager of Sullivan's Clothing Store in Lockland. Cook stole clothing and money from Sullivan's. He then kidnapped Mr. Shorter, taking him to an abandoned building where he robbed him and shot him in the head at point-blank range. Cook later telephoned the police and Mr. Shorter's wife asking for reward money in exchange for the murder weapon.

  2. #2
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    November 25, 2014

    Death sentence upheld for man who murdered clothing store manager

    By ANNIE YAMSON
    Daily Legal News

    In Ohio’s First District Court of Appeals, a panel of three judges recently upheld a Cincinnati man’s conviction for aggravated murder and his death sentence.

    The defendant, Derrick Cook, appealed from the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgment dismissing his petition for relief from his 1990 conviction.

    The Hamilton County court found Cook guilty of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery and kidnapping in connection with the death of Frank Shorter.

    According to a summary of the crime in the Ohio Attorney General’s Capital Crimes Annual Report for 2012, Cook murdered 68-year-old Shorter in an abandoned building on Seitz Street in Cincinnati.

    Shorter was the manager of Sullivan’s Clothing Store. The report states that Cook stole clothing and money from Sullivan’s then kidnapped Shorter, took him to an abandoned building, robbed him and shot him in the head at point-blank range.

    Later, the summary states that Cook called the police and Shorter’s wife, demanding reward money in exchange for the murder weapon.

    Cook was sentenced to death for the aggravated murder and proceeded to unsuccessfully challenge his convictions in appeals to the First District and the Supreme Court.

    In 1992, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence.

    In 2012, Cook petitioned the Hamilton County court a second time for postconviction relief. His most recent appeal challenged the lower court’s dismissal of that petition.

    The First District court, however, sided with the trial court, noting that Cook’s petition was untimely.

    “The postconviction petition from which this appeal derives is Cook’s second petition and was filed well after the time prescribed by R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) had expired,” wrote Judge Lee Hildebrandt on behalf of the appellate panel. “R.C. 2953.23 closely circumscribes a common pleas court’s jurisdiction to entertain, in a capital case, a late or successive postconviction claim.”

    Under the statute, a petitioner is required to show that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts on which he relies in his postconviction claim or that his claim is predicated upon a new or retrospectively applicable right recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court since the time for filing his claim had expired.

    “And he must show by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offense of which he was convicted ... or eligible for the death sentence,” wrote Hildebrandt.

    Cook contended that the “clear and convincing evidence” jurisdictional standard was unconstitutional.

    According to court documents, Cook argued that requiring a showing of clear and convincing evidence before a common pleas court can entertain a late or successive petition violates due process rights guaranteed under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of separation of powers.

    In response, the court of appeals cited nine cases from various district courts around the state, including two previous opinions from the First District, in which the courts held that “the ‘clear and convincing’ standard does not violate due process.”

    The remainder of Cook’s assignments of error challenged the trial court’s failure to grant the relief he sought.

    He alleged that there was error during the grand-jury foreperson selection process and claimed that his trial was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct, false testimony and ineffective assistance of counsel.

    The appellate panel held that Cook failed to demonstrate that, but for the errors, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty or eligible for the death sentence.

    “Therefore, the common pleas court had no jurisdiction to entertain his claims,” wrote Hildebrandt.

    Cook also sought relief on the ground that he had been denied a fair trial due to cumulative error.

    “Under the doctrine of cumulative error, a conviction may be reversed if the cumulative effect of errors deemed separately harmless is to deny the defendant a fair trial,” wrote Hildebrandt. “But Cook’s cumulative error claim did not provide a ground for relief from his convictions because it depended upon proof of, and thus fell upon his failure to demonstrate, multiple constitutional violations in the proceedings leading to his convictions.”

    The court of appeals ultimately ruled that the Hamilton County court properly dismissed Cook’s postconviction petition with Presiding Judge Penelope Cunningham and Judge Sylvia Hendon concurring.

    The case is cited State v. Cook, 2014-Ohio-4900.

    http://www.dlnnews.com/editorial/11684

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •