State v. McRae

Summary

The Ohio Court of Appeals for the Fifth Appellate District affirmed the denial of Charles McRae’s motion for leave to file an untimely petition for postconviction relief. The court held that McRae failed to satisfy the jurisdictional exceptions for an untimely petition under R.C. 2953.23 and that his claims were also barred by res judicata and unsupported by sufficient evidentiary materials.

Holdings

1. McRae's June 16, 2025 petition was untimely because it was filed more than 365 days after the relevant trial transcripts were filed in his direct appeals.
2. A trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider an untimely postconviction petition unless the petitioner satisfies an exception under R.C. 2953.23(A).
3. McRae's postconviction claims were barred by res judicata because they were based on facts known at trial and either were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal.
4. The trial court properly denied the postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing because McRae submitted no affidavits or evidentiary materials establishing sufficient operative facts for a constitutional violation.
5. The denial of McRae's requests for appointed counsel and expert assistance was not disturbed because postconviction relief is a civil collateral proceeding and an indigent defendant has no federal or state constitutional right to counsel in such a proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly treated McRae's filing as an untimely petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21.
2. Whether McRae satisfied either exception permitting consideration of an untimely postconviction petition under R.C. 2953.23(A).
3. Whether McRae's claims were barred by res judicata because they were raised or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.
4. Whether the trial court properly denied relief without an evidentiary hearing because McRae submitted no affidavits or evidentiary materials containing sufficient operative facts.
5. Whether the trial court properly denied McRae's requests for appointed counsel and expert assistance in the postconviction proceeding.

Disposition

affirmed