2018 Ohio 4113
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In Nov. 2013 a jury convicted Andrey Bridges of murder, felonious assault, tampering with evidence, and abuse of a corpse; he was sentenced to an aggregate life term with parole eligibility after 18.5 years.
- Bridges appealed; this court affirmed his convictions and denied later attempts to reopen the appeal.
- Between 2014 and 2016 Bridges filed multiple postconviction, motion-for-new-trial, and other collateral motions; the trial court denied them and this court repeatedly affirmed, finding many claims barred by res judicata or untimely.
- In Dec. 2017 Bridges filed a "motion to leave to file void or voidable judgment," arguing the trial court impermissibly considered the victim’s transgender status (or sexual orientation) at sentencing and that his sentence contained illegal determinations.
- The trial court denied that motion; Bridges appealed from the denial and this court affirmed, holding the petition untimely and/or barred by res judicata and not presenting a colorable claim that his sentence was void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of postconviction petition | The State argued the petition was filed well past R.C. 2953.21 time limits and not saved by statutory exceptions | Bridges argued the sentencing consideration made his judgment void and moved to file despite the delay | Petition untimely; Bridges failed to show newly discovered facts or that he was unavoidably prevented from discovery, so R.C. 2953.23 relief inapplicable |
| Res judicata bar to collateral claims | State relied on Perry to argue sentencing challenges not raised on direct appeal are barred | Bridges contended sentencing was contrary to law and thus void (not subject to res judicata) | Most sentencing complaints were barred by res judicata; Bridges did not present a colorable void-sentence claim to avoid the bar |
| Alleged illegal sentencing determinations | State maintained no showing that the sentence was facially illegal or void | Bridges claimed the court made illegal determinations (e.g., ordering life then additional consecutive time; considering victim’s gender/sexual orientation improperly) | Court found no colorable argument or evidence that the sentence was void; disagreement about sentencing findings or factor consideration is barred by res judicata |
| Consideration of victim’s transgender status at sentencing | State noted the transcript relied on by Bridges was part of the record and not new evidence | Bridges argued the court impermissibly considered victim’s gender life style/sexual orientation, violating due process | Court treated the claim as one about sentencing findings/factors; such challenges are barred by res judicata and do not make the sentence void |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. State, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 1997) (defines petition for postconviction relief and its elements)
- Perry v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars relitigation of claims raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- Fischer v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (void sentences are reviewable at any time and are an exception to res judicata)
- Gondor v. State, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (Ohio 2006) (standard of review for postconviction relief is abuse of discretion)
- Milanovich v. State, 42 Ohio St.2d 46 (Ohio 1975) (postconviction relief as means to address claims based on evidence outside the record)