State v. Brown, 2014 Ohio 3222

METRICH narcotics investigation led to controlled buys from Juhan Brown in 2009 at residences on East Arch Street; later a search warrant was executed at 55 E. Arch.
Officers seized three baggies of crack cocaine (5.68 g, 3.49 g, 3.24 g), a digital scale, and $940 from Brown.
Brown was indicted on multiple counts: three trafficking counts (each 1–10 g, in the vicinity of a school zone) and one possession count (10–25 g), plus a forfeiture specification.
Jury convicted Brown on all counts (March 2011); trial court sentenced him to 11 years consecutive. This court affirmed on direct appeal in 2012.
In July 2013 Brown filed a post-conviction motion arguing (1) digital maps showed offenses were not within a school zone, (2) lab results undermined the possession quantity, and (3) alleged conflicts on the charging instruments; he asked the trial court to take judicial notice.
Trial court treated the filing as an untimely petition for post-conviction relief, found evidence not newly discovered (some exhibits had been faxed in 2011 and trial exhibits existed), invoked res judicata, and dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. Brown appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on newly discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33(A)(6)	State: Petition untimely; evidence available earlier so no right to hearing	Brown: Maps and materials received May 2013 are newly discovered and warrant hearing	Court: No abuse — evidence was available to trial counsel (faxed Nov. 2011), so petition untimely and no hearing required
Whether possession conviction (10–25 g) was contrary to law/unsupported by evidence	State: Lab results and exhibits were part of trial record; conviction stands	Brown: November 2009 lab report undermines quantity element, rendering conviction void	Court: Claim barred by untimeliness and res judicata; evidence was part of record, so claim fails
Whether trafficking counts (1–10 g in school zone) were void for statutory inapplicability	State: Indictment and verdict were in the record and properly adjudicated	Brown: Argues no such statutory provision applies as charged	Court: Issue was or could have been raised on direct appeal; res judicata bars relitigation; conviction affirmed
Whether charging instrument and notarization created conflict of interest or invalidated search/seizure	State: Search return and warrant were part of trial and not newly discovered	Brown: Notary/chain issues undermine charging instruments and seized evidence	Court: Those documents were part of trial record; claims are barred by res judicata and untimeliness

State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (standards for treating post-conviction motions under R.C. 2953.21)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)