2013 Ohio 4637
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- William T. Carter pled guilty in 2009 to kidnapping (Count One) and aggravated robbery (Count Two), each with repeat violent offender (RVO) specifications; plea agreement required a presentence report but did not bar the State from speaking at sentencing.
- The trial court initially imposed concurrent 10-year terms on the underlying counts and concurrent 10-year RVO terms, then ordered the RVO term to run consecutive to the underlying term for an aggregate 20-year sentence.
- This Court reversed and remanded for resentencing; after further proceedings the State elected to proceed on the aggravated robbery count and the court resentenced Carter to a 20-year aggregate term (10 + 10 consecutive).
- Carter filed multiple appeals and a first post-conviction petition challenging alleged judicial coercion and was denied; this Court affirmed. He later filed a second, untimely post-conviction petition asserting ineffective assistance of counsel under Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper (failure to properly advise during plea negotiations, forged signature, and inadequate investigation).
- The trial court denied the second petition without a hearing as barred by res judicata and untimely under R.C. 2953.21/2953.23; Carter appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding Frye and Lafler did not apply on the facts and the petition remained untimely (dismissible for lack of jurisdiction), although denial was not reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second post-conviction petition | The State (implicitly) contends petition is untimely and jurisdictionally barred | Carter argues Frye/Lafler create a retroactive constitutional right excusing the 180-day filing limit | Petition was untimely; Frye/Lafler do not apply here, so exception under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) not met |
| Applicability of Missouri v. Frye | N/A | Carter contends counsel failed to communicate plea terms and his plea-form signature was forged, invoking Frye (duty to convey plea offers) | Frye inapplicable: record shows counsel communicated terms and Carter acknowledged plea form and understanding in open court |
| Applicability of Lafler v. Cooper | N/A | Carter contends counsel failed to negotiate or obtain a better plea (or silence at sentencing), invoking Cooper (prejudice where bad advice causes rejection of plea) | Cooper inapplicable: no record evidence counsel advised rejection of a plea offer that would have yielded a lesser sentence |
| Relief for untimely petition / denial without hearing | State argues lack of jurisdiction requires dismissal; denial without hearing is not reversible error | Carter seeks evidentiary hearing based on Frye/Cooper claims | Court: lacked jurisdiction to entertain untimely petition absent exception; even so, denial (rather than dismissal) is not reversible error on these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (counsel has duty to communicate plea offers; ineffective assistance may arise from failure to do so)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (counsel ineffective where advice leads a defendant to reject a plea that would have produced a lesser sentence)