State v. DeVaughns, 84 N.E.3d 332

Christopher DeVaughns was convicted by jury in 2006 of felonious assault and kidnapping for violently injuring and confining the victim; the trial court imposed consecutive prison terms.
On direct appeal the court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing because DeVaughns was not given an opportunity to speak; resentencing imposed the same consecutive terms and was later affirmed.
Over the years DeVaughns filed numerous post-trial and post-conviction motions raising issues including an allegedly incomplete trial transcript, newly discovered daycare evidence, and challenges to blood evidence introduced at trial (no DNA testing performed on blood samples).
In 2015–2016 DeVaughns sought a statement of the evidence under App.R. 9(C) to correct alleged transcript omissions and filed a petition under R.C. 2953.21 alleging inadmissible/unalleged blood evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court denied the App.R. 9(C) motion and the post-conviction petition without a hearing.
The trial court ruled the claims were barred by res judicata and the petition was untimely/successive; it also found DeVaughns had not shown unavoidable prevention of discovery or the clear-and-convincing standard required to excuse untimeliness.
DeVaughns appealed the denial of the App.R. 9(C) request and the post-conviction petition; the appellate court affirmed the trial court's rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in denying DeVaughns's motion for a statement of the evidence under App.R. 9(C)	State: denial was proper because claims were barred by res judicata and there was no pending appeal requiring correction	DeVaughns: trial court should have corrected the transcript under App.R. 9(C)/(E) and not applied res judicata	Court: affirmed — res judicata barred the motion; no pending appeal when court ruled; DeVaughns gave no specific omissions to be corrected
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying DeVaughns's petition for post-conviction relief (R.C. 2953.21) and by considering the State's allegedly late response	State: petition was successive and untimely; allegations could have been raised earlier; late response does not entitle relief	DeVaughns: petition timely (or State’s late filing barred State from responding) and raised constitutional error from undisclosed/unalleged blood evidence and counsel ineffectiveness	Court: affirmed — petition was untimely and successive; DeVaughns failed to show unavoidable prevention or clear-and-convincing prejudice required to proceed; State’s late response did not mandate relief

Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (res judicata doctrine bars claims arising from same transaction)
Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (res judicata in criminal appeals — issues raised or could have been raised on direct appeal are barred)
Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (res judicata promotes finality and judicial economy in criminal litigation)
Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (post-conviction proceedings are collateral civil attacks; rights in such proceedings are statutory)
Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (post-conviction relief is statutory and not a constitutional right)