State v. Durham, 2012 Ohio 4165

Roy Durham, Jr. was convicted of felonious assault and kidnapping in Cuyahoga County and sought postconviction relief.
Durham claimed ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to investigate/subpoena witnesses and to use exculpatory evidence at trial.
The State argued that Durham’s petition was barred by res judicata and untimely under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2).
The trial transcript record filed in the direct appeal was June 10, 2010; Durham filed the postconviction petition March 12, 2011.
The court determined the 180-day time limit was jurisdictional and exceeded, depriving the court of jurisdiction to hear the petition.
Supplemental records filed in the direct appeal (September 13, 2010) did not extend the 180-day deadline for postconviction relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the postconviction petition was timely under the 180-day rule	Durham	State	Untimely; jurisdiction barred
Whether supplemental records extended the 180-day period	Durham	State	Supplemental records do not extend the 180-day time limit
Whether the court could address postconviction relief sua sponte for timeliness	Durham	State	Court may raise timeliness issue sua sponte; untimely

State v. Hutton, 8th Dist. No. 80763, 2007-Ohio-5443 (Ohio-2007) (180-day postconviction timeliness jurisdictional)
State v. Rice, 11th Dist. No. 2010-A-0046, 2011-Ohio-3746 (Ohio-2011) (supplemental transcripts not counted toward 180 days)
State v. Everette, 129 Ohio St. 3d 317, 2011-Ohio-2856 (Ohio-2011) (transcript constitutes transcript for purposes of 2953.21(A)(2))
State v. Chavis-Tucker, 2006-Ohio-3105 (Ohio-2006) (no extension from pretrial hearing transcripts)
State v. Hill, 160 Ohio App.3d 324, 2005-Ohio-1501 (Ohio-2005) (jurisdictional timeliness issue can be raised sua sponte)