2015 Ohio 5182
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In 1981 Eric J. Davis was convicted of multiple offenses (including murder, arson, aggravated burglary) and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 2013 Davis filed a motion to vacate his sentencing entry claiming it was void for failing to state the manner of conviction (jury verdict); the trial court denied that motion.
- On appeal (Davis II) the Ninth District affirmed the denial but remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry clarifying the manner of conviction under Crim.R. 32(C); the trial court issued the corrected entry.
- On November 18, 2014 Davis filed a new “Motion to Vacate Void Sentence,” claiming the life sentence was void because he was sentenced twice for the same offense.
- The trial court denied the motion; the Ninth District affirmed, holding the motion was properly construed as a petition for post-conviction relief and was untimely under former R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) with no applicable statutory exception shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Davis’s motion to vacate his sentence as void (alleging he was sentenced twice for the same offense) | Davis: sentence is contrary to law and therefore void; court exceeded authority by imposing sentence twice | State: the filing is a petition for post-conviction relief that is untimely; Davis did not meet statutory exceptions so court lacked jurisdiction | The motion was a post-conviction petition, untimely under former R.C. 2953.21(A)(2); no R.C. 2953.23(A) exception shown; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 4 Ohio App.3d 199 (9th Dist. 1982) (appellate decision affirming Davis’s 1981 convictions)
- State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 1997) (post-conviction relief standard: when a motion filed after direct appeal may be treated as a petition under R.C. 2953.21)