Fourth District Court of Appeals rejects former Highland councilman's 2nd appeal attempt in rape case
The Fourth District Court of Appeals has overruled a second appeal attempt by a former Village of Highland councilman who received four sentences of life without parole in August 2021 after a jury found him guilty of raping a child over an eight-year period.
As previously reported, Aaron D. Ludwick, 40, was indicted in March 2021 on five first-degree felony charges of rape.
Following a two-day trial, it took the jury of seven women and five men just over an hour of deliberations to convict Ludwick of all five counts, including four counts with specifications that the child was under the age of 10 at the time of the offenses.
Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss imposed the four life sentences, consecutive to a minimum term of 11 years (maximum 16.5 years) on the fifth count of rape, an hour and a half after the verdicts were read Aug. 13, 2021.
“The conduct is just absolutely despicable,” Coss said at the sentencing. “It’s evil.”
In July 2022, the Fourth District Court of Appeals upheld Ludwick’s conviction in a decision written by Judge Michael Hess. In that appeal, Ludwick presented several assignments of error, including: “(1) that the trial court erred when it allowed the prosecution to ask him questions about his sexual history; (2) he had ineffective assistance of counsel for (a) failing to object to other-acts testimony about Ludwick’s behavior at certain social events, (b) failing to request a redaction of a portion of a forensic interview that contained hearsay alleging other crimes, and (c) failing to request a waiver of court costs; and (3) multiple errors cumulatively deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial.”
In his second appeal, Ludwick is contesting “the trial court’s decision denying his petition for post-conviction relief,” arguing that the Court “erred” by not “conducting an evidentiary hearing” based on his “claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; that the Court erred by denying his “petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing;” and that “the multiple errors cumulatively deprived [him] of his constitutional right to a fair trial.”
The Fourth District Court of Appeals’ decision — which was posted last month and also written by Judge Hess — overruled Ludwick’s three assignments of error.
“A petitioner seeking post-conviction relief is not automatically entitled to a hearing,” the appellate court wrote. “Before granting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court must determine whether substantive grounds for relief exist. Here, the trial court properly determined that substantive grounds for relief did not exist.”
Ludwick argued that he had “alibis” — which included “four affidavits” from acquaintances or family members who claimed that they “never witnessed” any evidence of the allegations.
“The trial court correctly held that such statements do not constitute ‘alibis,’ nor would they be relevant impeachment evidence,” Hess wrote.
Ludwick also argued that he “had asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege” but “was forced by threats of criminal charges” to surrender evidence to law enforcement.
“The trial court also reviewed the record and properly determined that none of the evidence Ludwick contends was obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment was introduced as evidence as trial and, therefore, could not be the basis for vacating his convictions,” Hess wrote.
The appellate court noted in their decision that not only was the evidence Ludwick was contesting “not admitted,” but the statements made by Ludwick “after he invoked the Fifth Amendment” were also not used.
According to the Court of Appeals’ decision, Hess wrote that the court “agrees with the trial court’s conclusions” regarding Ludwick’s “argument and affidavits.” They also found “no merit to Ludwick’s second claim.”
For Ludwick’s third argument of “cumulative errors,” Hess wrote, “Ludwick cites no legal authority to support his assertion that the cumulative-error doctrine applies to a trial court’s denial of a postconviction relief petition, which is a collateral civil attack on a judgment.”
“To the extent that Ludwick is invoking the cumulative-error doctrine for his claims of (1) ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) a Fifth Amendment violation, we find that he failed to raise this claim in his postconviction relief petition and cannot raise it on appeal for the first time,” the appellate court’s decision says. “To the extent Ludwick seeks to apply the cumulative-error doctrine to his petition for postconviction relief – a collateral civil attack – by arguing that the trial judge made multiple harmless errors in denying him an evidentiary hearing, we find that the question of whether the cumulative-error doctrine is applicable in the civil context appears to be a question of first impression in our district.”
However, Hess said the court found that the cumulative-error doctrine “has no relevance or application” in Ludwick’s case.
“This is an appeal from a denial of a postconviction relief petition, which we review for ‘abuse of discretion,’” Hess wrote. “We have found no abuse of discretion by the trial court in deciding not to grant an evidentiary hearing before it denied Ludwick’s petition. Thus, the cumulative-error doctrine has no relevance or application. We overrule Ludwick’s third assignment of error.”