State v. Current, 2013 Ohio 1921

Current was indicted in 2009 on weapons while under disability and receiving stolen property; additional counts in a separate case included possession of criminal tools, breaking and entering, theft, burglary, and grand theft.
He pled guilty in December 2009 (Case 2009 CR 194) and January 2010 (Case 2009 CR 229) to two counts, with other counts dismissed; he received four years and 12 months respectively, to be served concurrently.
Current did not appeal the convictions, and by 2010 he moved to withdraw his plea, alleging a broken state promise for a one-year sentence in exchange for testimony; the trial court denied without a hearing, and an appellate court later affirmed.
In April 2012, Current filed a petition to vacate or set aside his conviction asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, transcript issues, and prosecutorial misconduct; he sought appointment of counsel and expert assistance.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the State in July 2012, concluding the petition was untimely and not excused under R.C. 2953.23; Current appeals the dismissal.
The court held the petition was untimely because Current did not file within 180 days after the direct appeal deadline, and he failed to show grounds to excuse timeliness under R.C. 2953.23.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of post-conviction petition	Current argues timely under 180 days after transcript filing in appeal.	State contends petition untimely; timeliness binding absent excusal under R.C. 2953.23.	Untimely; court lacked jurisdiction to entertain petition.
Court’s handling of timeliness instruction	Current claims the court improperly instructed the State on timeliness and that this harmed him.	State asserts proper to focus on timeliness given jurisdictional limit.	Trial court properly directed focus on timeliness; timeliness is jurisdictional.
R.C. 2953.23(A) excusal standards applied	Current contends there were grounds to excuse untimeliness due to unavoidable discovery or new rights.	State argues no grounds shown; no new rights or unavoidable discovery shown, and no evidence of favorable facts.	No excusal shown; petition untimely and barred.

State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (post-conviction relief is a civil collateral attack; timeliness and jurisdiction matter)
State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (1994) (define post-conviction rights and procedures; statutory limits apply)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (limits on post-conviction relief rights and timing considerations)