The Akron Legal News

Convictions upheld for man who bilked millions through bogus military charity

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 27, 2015

For the second time this year, the 8th District Court of Appeals recently considered the case of John Donald Cody, also known as Bobby Thompson, a man who organized a fake charity through which he procured millions of dollars in donations.

Cody appealed from the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his petition for postconviction relief.

Earlier this year, in State v. Thompson (2015-Ohio-2261) the court of appeals recounted the facts of Cody’s case which arose from an investigation regarding the United States Naval Veteran’s Association.

The charity was created and organized by a person who identified himself as Bobby Thompson.

The investigation revealed that the charity was a sham fabricated by Cody who solicited more than $2 million from Ohio donors alone.

In October 2010, Cody was indicted in two separate cases on charges of engaging in corrupt activity, money laundering, aggravated theft and identity fraud.

However, it was not until April 2012 that Cody was apprehended in Oregon.

A new, third indictment was issued in July 2012 and superseded the previous two indictments, which were dismissed.

That surviving 24-count indictment was ultimately tried before a jury that heard testimony from 47 witnesses and viewed more than 200 exhibits.

Cody was convicted on 23 counts and sentenced to 28 years in prison with an order that he spend every Veteran’s Day in solitary confinement.

On consideration of Cody’s direct appeal, the 8th District court found that the state of Ohio did not have jurisdiction over 11 counts of identity fraud and it vacated Cody’s convictions on those charges.

It also found that the order to spend Veteran’s Day in solitary confinement was contrary to law. Cody’s convictions were affirmed on the remaining counts.

While the direct appeal was pending, Cody filed a postconviction petition in the trial court.

As evidentiary support, Cody attached his own affidavits to that petition.

The trial court granted the state’s motion for summary judgment and denied the petition.

Cody’s latest appeal challenged that ruling with nine assignments of error.

“A trial court’s decision granting or denying a postconviction petition ... should be upheld absent an abuse of discretion,” Presiding Judge Larry Jones wrote on behalf of the 8th District court’s three-judge appellate panel. “Unlike a direct appeal, a petition for postconviction relief is a collateral civil attack on a criminal judgment.”

Jones made sure to note that the burden of proof, as with all petitions for postconviction relief, rested with Cody and that “broad assertions without any demonstrations of proof are insufficient.”

The court of appeals took issue with Cody’s broad claims of innocence and his “self-serving affidavits.”

For example, in one assignment of error, Cody argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue certain witnesses who would have established that Cody was working for the CIA.

He also claimed that he was severely beaten in jail which resulted in an incompetence to stand trial.

Jones first pointed out that Cody could have raised those claims on direct appeal and then that he never managed to prove what exactly tied him to the CIA.

“Although Cody argues that both of these claims would be proved by evidence outside the record, he does not show what the evidence would be,” Jones wrote.

In another assignment of error, Cody claimed that the state withheld exculpatory military files on him.

According to Cody, the state’s actions occurred outside the record and he was only able to bring that claim in a petition for postconviction relief as opposed to a direct appeal.

“The trial court disagreed and again found that the sole support for Cody’s argument was contained in his own self-serving affidavit,” Jones wrote. “The court determined that Cody failed to show that the state withheld any military files, files concerning Cody’s relationship to any other federal agency, or other exculpatory material, and identified no set of facts from outside the record. We agree.”

The court of appeals held that Cody failed to support his claims with anything “more than unsupported assertions.”

The reviewing court proceeded to overrule all of Cody’s remaining arguments, including challenges to venue and the trial court’s adoption of the state’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In every instance, the appellate panel found that Cody failed to provide substantial proof of his claims other than mere assertions “in an attempt to bolster his claims.”

As a result, the court of appeals issued a unanimous affirmation of the judgment of the Cuyahoga County court.

Judges Mary Eileen Kilbane and Tim McCormack joined Jones to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Cody, 2015-Ohio-2764.

[Back]