2017 Ohio 9074
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In Aug. 2009 two victims were found bound and burned in a car; investigation tied items used to Barnette via Dollar General surveillance. Barnette was indicted Oct. 1, 2009 on multiple counts including aggravated murder, kidnapping, and arson.
- A jury convicted Barnette (all counts except two aggravated-robbery counts); after mitigation the jury recommended life without parole; sentence imposed Oct. 26, 2011.
- Barnette pursued direct appeal and post-conviction motions; this court affirmed the convictions and denied various motions, including motions to reopen and delayed motions for new trial.
- Between Aug.–Dec. 2016 Barnette filed multiple motions challenging jurisdiction (claiming arrest without warrant/probable cause) and attaching the indictment; those motions were denied and not appealed.
- On Jan. 24, 2017 Barnette filed a petition to vacate as void for lack of jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23; the trial court denied it as untimely and barred by res judicata. Barnette appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of postconviction petition under R.C. 2953.21 | State: petition filed >365 days after trial transcript, so untimely | Barnette: exceptions apply because he was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering key documents | Petition untimely; Barnette did not meet statutory exception, so dismissal proper |
| Discovery of Liberty PD incident report / Brady / suppression | State: report was available earlier and Barnette previously relied on it in motions | Barnette: officers filed fraudulent reports, counsel ineffective, prosecutor withheld report, so he couldn’t discover it earlier | Court found Barnette had prior access to the report and had raised the issue earlier; exception not shown |
| Validity of arrest / court’s personal jurisdiction | State: arrest and jurisdiction not successfully challenged in timely fashion | Barnette: arrested without warrant or probable cause, so court lacked jurisdiction over person | Court rejected claim as untimely and previously litigated; res judicata bars relitigation |
| Sufficiency/form of indictment (Crim.R. 6[F]) | State: indictment complied; defense could have raised on direct appeal | Barnette: indictment/indictment presentment defective | Court held claim was previously raised and barred by res judicata; not a basis to avoid timeliness bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. State, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982) (postconviction petition does not automatically entitle petitioner to a hearing)
- Ishmail v. Richey, 67 Ohio St.2d 16 (1981) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Smith, 125 Ohio App.3d 342 (1998) (claims supported by evidence dehors the record may avoid res judicata because they could not have been fully litigated on direct appeal)