State v. Carter, 2018 Ohio 4115

In Aug. 2014 Darnell Carter pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated robbery; court imposed consecutive 2‑year terms (total 8 years). No direct appeal.
March 2015 Carter filed a pro se postconviction petition (R.C. 2953.21) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at the plea hearing; trial court denied without a hearing or findings.
This court dismissed Carter’s first appeal as nonfinal because the trial court failed to issue findings; after mandamus proceedings the trial court adopted proposed findings and this court reversed the denial and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
On remand the trial court appointed counsel and set a hearing; before the hearing Carter filed an amended postconviction petition (alternatively a motion to withdraw plea) adding a Brady claim.
The state moved to dismiss the amended petition as beyond the scope of the remand; the trial court granted that motion (leaving the original petition pending and no hearing held). Carter appealed from that order.
The Court of Appeals sua sponte considered whether the dismissal of the amended petition is a final, appealable order and concluded it is not; the appeal was dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal of amended postconviction petition is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02	Carter: order affects substantial right in a special proceeding; immediate review needed to protect due process and avoid litigating an insufficient pro se petition	State: trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider amended petition beyond remand; dismissal is not final and appeal must await disposition of original petition	Not final/appealable under R.C. 2505.02; appeal dismissed
Whether Carter was entitled to amend his pending postconviction petition on remand	Carter: remand did not limit scope; denying amendment prejudices rights and ability to present claims	State: remand limited proceedings; amendment adds new, untimely Brady claim and is procedurally barred	Trial court permissibly denied leave to amend pending petition; issue not immediately appealable
Whether denial of counsel in postconviction proceedings implicates constitutionally protected right	Carter: appointed counsel was barred from litigating due to amendment denial; due process violated	State: no right to appointed counsel in postconviction proceedings (civil nature)	No constitutional right to appointed counsel in postconviction relief; argument does not make order appealable

State ex rel. McGinty v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals, 142 Ohio St.3d 100 (Ohio 2015) (interlocutory appeals disfavored)
State v. Coffman, 91 Ohio St.3d 125 (Ohio 2001) (definition and enforcement of substantial rights)
Bell v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 67 Ohio St.3d 60 (Ohio 1993) (order affects substantial right only if it forecloses future relief or prejudices a party)
State v. Mapson, 41 Ohio App.3d 390 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988) (no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in postconviction civil proceedings)
State ex rel. Jenkins v. Stern, 33 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1987) (government need not provide counsel in civil matters)
Heaton v. Ford Motor Co., 96 N.E.3d 1191 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) (prior interlocutory orders merge into a final judgment and become appealable)