State v. Ibn-Ford

Summary

The Ninth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the Summit County Court of Common Pleas' denial of Khalid Haqq Ibn-Ford's motion to vacate his convictions. The court construed the motion as a petition for post-conviction relief, held that it was untimely under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2), and concluded that Ibn-Ford failed to satisfy the exceptions for an untimely or successive petition under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1).

Holdings

1. A vaguely titled motion filed after a direct appeal that alleges constitutional violations, seeks to render the judgment void or voidable, and requests that the judgment and sentence be vacated may be treated as a petition for post-conviction relief. Ibn-Ford's motion was properly construed in that manner.
2. The trial court lacked authority to consider Ibn-Ford's untimely petition for post-conviction relief because he did not allege that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts supporting his claims or that the United States Supreme Court had recognized a new retroactive right applicable to his case, and he did not satisfy the additional statutory requirement concerning constitutional error and the absence of a reasonable finding of guilt.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly construed Ibn-Ford's vaguely titled motion to vacate a void conviction as a petition for post-conviction relief.
2. Whether the trial court had authority under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) to consider Ibn-Ford's untimely or successive post-conviction petition.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the claims concerning hybrid representation and ineffective assistance of counsel in plea negotiations.

Disposition

affirmed