State v. Rickard

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeals of Ohio held that Cody Rickard’s petition for postconviction relief was timely under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2). The court determined that the filing date of a written transcript of a video deposition, rather than the earlier filing date of the trial transcript, triggered the statutory filing period. The court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and remanded for consideration of the petition’s merits.

Holdings

1. When both a videotape recording and a written transcript of proceedings are available, the written transcript constitutes the transcript for purposes of determining when the statutory period for filing a postconviction petition begins. Because the written transcript of the video deposition was filed on July 10, 2017, Rickard's petition filed on July 10, 2018, was timely.
2. The appellate court could not decide the merits of Rickard's postconviction petition in the first instance and was required to remand the matter to the trial court for consideration of the merits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the postconviction petition was timely under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) when the written transcript of a video deposition used at trial was filed in the direct appeal 365 days before the petition.
2. Whether the appellate court could decide the merits of the postconviction claims in the first instance after reversing the trial court's timeliness dismissal.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded