State v. Crum
2014 Ohio 2361
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant Crum was convicted in 2005 on 17 counts (1 burglary, 16 breaking and entering).
- Appellant was sentenced in 2005 to a total of 12 years and one month.
- In 2013 Crum filed a motion labeled Re-sentencing, later treated as a petition for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 et seq.
- The trial court dismissed as untimely; Crum appealed those rulings.
- This court reversed, vacated the trial court’s entry, and dismissed the post-conviction petition for lack of jurisdiction due to timeliness and res judicata.
- The court also held that the petition could not be reviewed on the merits because it was time-barred and the allied-offense issue was barred by res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of post-conviction petition | Crum (P) claimed resentence relief; timely under 2953.23 | State (D) argued untimely under 2953.21(A)(2) | Untimely; court lacked jurisdiction to entertain |
| Allied offenses merger and plain error | Crum claimed failure to merge allied offenses | State argued issue barred by res judicata and untimely | Rejected; merits not reached due to res judicata and timeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ringer, 2013-Ohio-2442 (1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120606 (Ohio 2013)) (post-conviction timing and jurisdiction discussed)
- State v. Williams, 2012-Ohio-3401 (4th Dist. Lawrence No. 11CA25 (Ohio 2012)) (jurisdiction to entertain untimely postconviction petition; merger arguments barred)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (Foster-related sentencing findings and standards)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (constitutional sentencing framework (predecessor to merger and findings discussion))
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (consecutive-sentence findings requirements discussed by Ohio court)