State v. Davis, 2011 Ohio 1706

Davis was convicted in 2005 of felonious assault and abduction by a Washington County jury.
On appeal, the case was remanded for resentencing under Foster, then affirmed on later appeal after resentencing.
Davis sought a new sentencing hearing for a postrelease-control issue, resulting in another resentencing in March 2010, which was affirmed on appeal.
In January 2010, Davis filed a petition for postconviction relief with the trial court, attaching documents he claimed created reasonable doubt.
The trial court denied the petition as untimely and reviewed attached documents, noting deficiency under res judicata and other grounds.
Davis appealed, arguing timeliness and various grounds but the court affirmed dismissal for untimeliness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition was timely under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2).	Davis argued timing should be considered timely due to resentencing.	Davis failed to file within 180 days after the direct appeal, and resentencing cannot extend the period.	Untimely; 180-day limit runs from original appeal.
Whether R.C. 2953.23(A) justify a delayed petition.	Davis claimed unavoidably prevented discovery or new right recognized retroactively.	No new right recognized; evidence did not show unavoidable prevented discovery.	No grounds for delay; petition denied for lack of demonstrate unavoidably prevented discovery.
Whether the new evidence would have changed outcome; ineffective assistance claim.	Evidence could have created reasonable doubt and altered outcome.	Evidence was insufficient and not properly shown to support relief.	Evidence did not establish a basis for postconviction relief; petition affirmed as untimely.

State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (1994-Ohio-111) (postconviction relief is narrow and not a constitutional right)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999-Ohio-102) (no constitutional right to postconviction relief; limited statutory remedy)