Summary
The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Damien Turner's motion for postconviction relief. The court held that the petition was untimely under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) and did not satisfy the exceptions in R.C. 2953.23(A). The court also found the claims barred by res judicata because they could have been raised on direct appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's petition for postconviction relief as untimely and barred by res judicata.
Holdings
- The trial court did not err in denying the petition because it was untimely filed and did not meet the exceptions under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), and the claims were barred by res judicata.
Key quotations
“Except as otherwise provided in section 2953.23 of the Revised Code, a petition under division (A)(1) of this section shall be filed no later than one hundred eighty days after the date on which the trial transcript is filed in the court of appeals in the direct appeal of the judgment of conviction or adjudication or, if the direct appeal involves a sentence of death, the date on which the trial transcript is filed in the supreme court.* * *” (¶ 8)
“(A) Whether a hearing is or is not held on a petition filed pursuant to section 2953.21 of the Revised Code, a court may not entertain a petition filed after the expiration of the period prescribed in division (A) of that section or a second petition or successive petitions for similar relief on behalf of a petitioner unless division (A)(1) or (2) of this section applies:” (¶ 10)
“a defendant cannot raise an issue in a motion for postconviction relief if he or she could have raised the issue on direct appeal.” (¶ 17)
Factual background
Appellant was convicted of attempted murder and felonious assault and sentenced to nineteen years. He filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to contact and subpoena witnesses and for failing to object to speedy trial violations. The motion was filed one day after the statutory deadline. The trial court denied the motion.
Procedural history
Appellant was convicted of attempted murder and felonious assault and sentenced to nineteen years. He appealed; the appellate court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentence under State v. Foster and remanded for resentencing. After resentencing, he appealed again and the sentence was affirmed. He then filed a motion for postconviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and speedy trial violations. The trial court denied the motion as untimely and barred by res judicata. Appellant appealed that denial.