State v. Gibson
99 N.E.3d 948
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Daniel R. Gibson filed a motion under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) to correct his jail-time credit; the trial court denied it citing res judicata and saying Gibson "had not alleged" the error was not raised at sentencing.
- A panel of this appellate court (2–1) reversed, holding Gibson had alleged facts sufficient to invoke the statutory exception and that the trial court erred in applying res judicata without considering the motion's allegations.
- The State sought en banc review and certification to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing conflict with other appellate decisions (notably State v. Smith, State v. Johnson, and State v. Guiterres) that place the burden on the movant to prove the error was not raised at sentencing—typically by providing a transcript.
- The majority declined to certify conflict, explaining that while the movant bears the burden to prove entitlement to the statutory exception once res judicata is properly shown, the party asserting res judicata (an affirmative defense) must first demonstrate it applies—usually with materials outside the pleadings such as a transcript.
- The majority emphasized that R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) does not create a presumption that issues were raised at sentencing nor require a movant to submit a transcript ab initio when the State has not established res judicata.
- The dissent argued Gibson conflicts with Johnson and Guiterres, which held that movants must attach evidence (e.g., sentencing transcript) to show the issue was not raised at sentencing and that failure to do so defeats the court’s jurisdiction under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a movant filing under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) must attach a sentencing transcript or other evidence with the initial motion to prove the jail-time-credit error was not previously raised at sentencing | The State: movant must prove the issue was not previously raised (attach transcript) or res judicata bars the motion | Gibson: alleging in the motion that the issue was not raised at sentencing suffices initially; the State must first prove res judicata if it asserts that defense | Majority: No categorical rule requiring transcript with the initial motion; the party asserting res judicata must first show it applies before movant must rebut with evidence |
| Who bears the initial burden regarding res judicata in post-sentencing jail-credit motions | The State: res judicata should be presumed unless movant proves otherwise | Gibson: res judicata is an affirmative defense; the State must establish it before the movant must disprove it | Majority: Res judicata is an affirmative defense; the State must demonstrate it applies before movant must prove an exception under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) |
| Whether Smith, Johnson, and Guiterres are in conflict with Gibson | The State: cases require movant to produce transcript, thus conflict exists | Gibson: those cases do not address the burden of proof for an asserted affirmative defense and are factually distinct; no real conflict | Majority: No conflict; Gibson is consistent with Smith and distinguishes Johnson/Guiterres on their facts and the timing of res judicata assertions |
| Proper remedy when the record lacks a sentencing transcript and res judicata is raised | The State: dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or denial if movant fails to attach evidence | Gibson: trial court must not dismiss solely because movant did not attach transcript if State has not shown res judicata applies | Majority: Trial court should require the asserting party to establish res judicata (often via transcript) before requiring movant to rebut; movant not required to prove a negative up front |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co., 66 Ohio St.3d 594 (Ohio 1993) (certification to Ohio Supreme Court requires conflict on same question and rule of law)
- State v. Jackson, 141 Ohio St.3d 171 (Ohio 2014) (res judicata bars issues raised or that could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal)
- State ex rel. West v. McDonnell, 139 Ohio St.3d 115 (Ohio 2014) (res judicata is an affirmative defense and typically requires materials outside the pleadings)
- State v. Copas, 49 N.E.3d 755 (Ohio 2015) (sentencing court has continuing jurisdiction to correct jail-time credit errors not previously raised at sentencing)
- State v. Thompson, 147 Ohio St.3d 29 (Ohio 2016) (sentencing court’s authority under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) to correct jail-time credit errors not previously raised at sentencing)
- Guess v. Wilkinson, 123 Ohio App.3d 430 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) (res judicata is an affirmative defense that must be raised or is waived)
- State v. Gibson, 96 N.E.3d 919 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) (panel reversed trial court for dismissing jail-time credit motion without addressing whether State had established res judicata)