State v. Beechler
2017 Ohio 1385
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dana Beechler was convicted after a jury trial of two OVI offenses with a specification alleging five or more prior OVI convictions; the court imposed a total of 10 years (5 years + 5-year specification).
- Beechler appealed and the Second District affirmed; the Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction. He later filed multiple post-conviction and collateral motions and an application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B).
- Central recurring claim: trial counsel stipulated to Beechler’s prior OVI convictions (the specification) without Beechler’s knowledge or consent, allegedly depriving him of required proof and effective assistance of counsel.
- The trial court denied a 2016 verified motion titled "Motion to Vacate the Void Conviction" (construed as a petition for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21); Beechler appealed the denial and sought appointment of counsel and transcripts.
- The Second District held the petition was successive/untimely, barred by res judicata and R.C. 2953.23, and that the trial court had no duty to appoint counsel or issue findings of fact on an untimely/successive petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Beechler’s counsel was constitutionally ineffective for stipulating to prior OVIs | Beechler: counsel stipulated to priors without his knowledge, depriving him of proof and effective assistance | State: claim could and should have been raised on direct appeal or in timely postconviction filings; barred by res judicata/statutory time limits | Denied — claim is successive/untimely and barred by res judicata and R.C. 2953.23; not cognizable now |
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law when dismissing the motion | Beechler: court must file findings under R.C. 2953 | State: no duty to issue findings on successive/untimely petitions | Denied — no duty to issue findings on successive/untimely postconviction petitions |
| Whether the jury instruction treating attorney stipulations as true deprived Beechler of a fair trial | Beechler: instruction improperly treated stipulations as direct evidence and prejudiced him | State: issue could have been raised on direct appeal; barred by res judicata | Denied — claim barred by res judicata; not reconsidered in postconviction collateral attack |
| Whether the trial court erred in refusing to appoint counsel for the postconviction petition | Beechler: requested appointed counsel after filing petition and notice of appeal | State: no constitutional right to appointed counsel in postconviction proceedings absent court-ordered evidentiary hearing | Denied — no right to counsel for postconviction petitions; appointment only if court orders hearing and notifies public defender |
Key Cases Cited
- Maupin v. Smith, 785 F.2d 135 (6th Cir.) (federal procedural-default analysis for habeas claims)
- State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2008) (recasting irregular motions and classifying collateral postconviction petitions)
- State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 1997) (postconviction petitions are collateral remedies governed by R.C. 2953.21)
- State v. Twyford, 106 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2005) (res judicata bars relitigation of adjudicated ineffective-assistance claims)
- State v. Williams, 99 Ohio St.3d 179 (Ohio 2003) (res judicata preclusion of previously litigated claims)
- State v. Crowder, 60 Ohio St.3d 151 (Ohio 1991) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in postconviction proceedings)
- State ex rel. George v. Burnside, 118 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio 2008) (trial court need not issue findings on successive/untimely postconviction petitions)
- State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 (Ohio 2002) (distinguishing R.C. 2953 postconviction statutes from Crim.R. 32.1 motion practice)