On Thursday, November 6, 2025, Rayshaun N. Powell filed a complaint of habeas corpus in the Ohio Supreme Court against Judge Chris D. Cook. Powell, acting pro se, is currently incarcerated. The case stems from Powell’s 2012 conviction on one count of rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), for which he received an eight-year prison sentence.
The case’s origins trace back to the summer of 2010, when the victim, Y.M., and her family were staying with Erica Perez, a friend of Y.M.’s mother. Powell, who was married to Perez, was incarcerated at the time but was later released and resided at Perez’s apartment. Y.M. alleges that Powell sexually assaulted her one night when she and other children were left alone with him, an accusation Powell denies.
Powell’s initial appeal of his rape conviction, based on arguments of insufficient evidence and manifest weight of the evidence, was affirmed by the Ninth District Court of Appeals. Subsequent attempts to vacate or set aside the judgment and motions for a new trial, were also unsuccessful. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision, citing a lack of authority to consider the untimely petition for post-conviction relief.
Powell’s current complaint centers on claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and due process violations due to judicial bias and financial conflict of interest involving the prior trial judge, James M. Burge, and his appointed attorney, Paul Griffin. Powell alleges that Burge and Griffin had a financial relationship, as Griffin rented office space from a company in which Burge held an ownership interest. Powell contends that this conflict was known by all parties but was not disclosed to him, depriving him of the opportunity to waive the conflict.
Powell further argues that after he was found guilty, Judge Burge initially suspended all costs of prosecution and court-appointed counsel, only to later order Powell to reimburse county-appointed attorney fees, allegedly benefiting Griffin. Powell asserts that this demonstrates a direct, personal, substantial, and pecuniary interest by the judge in the outcome of the case.
Powell claims his appeal, typed on September 10, 2025, and paid for on September 12, 2025, has not been filed by the Lorain County Clerk of Court, effectively blocking him from being heard on these issues. He argues that judicial bias and denial of self-representation constitute structural errors, rendering his trial unreliable. Powell seeks to have his conviction vacated or, alternatively, reversed and remanded for reconsideration on its merits.
