State v. Hach, 2014 Ohio 682

Hach was convicted in 1999 by jury of eleven counts of rape and ten counts of gross sexual imposition.
Convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in 2001 by the Ninth District Summit County Court of Appeals.
In August 2013, Hach filed a petition for post-conviction relief relying on Alleyne v. United States (2013).
The trial court denied the petition; Hach appeals challenging timeliness and retroactivity of Alleyne.
Statutory filing deadline under R.C. 2953.21/A and 2953.23 requires timely petition; Hach’s petition was filed in August 2013, beyond 180 days.
The court held that Alleyne does not create a new basis to toll or extend the timing for post-conviction relief, and sentencing errors are not subject to those post-conviction relief provisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Alleyne creates a new retroactive rule for post-conviction relief	Hach contends Alleyne is a new, retroactive rule.	State argues Alleyne does not apply retroactively to post-conviction relief petitions.	Alleyne does not establish a retroactive new rule for post-conviction relief.
Whether Alleyne applies to Hach's untimely petition for sentencing relief	Hach asserts sentencing would have been different under Alleyne.	State contends R.C. 2953.23 limits relief to trial-rights, not sentencing errors.	R.C. 2953.23 does not authorize relief for sentencing errors.

State v. Perry, 2013-Ohio-4466 (9th Dist. Summit No. 26766, 2013) (appellate review standard for post-conviction abuse of discretion)
State v. Childs, 2011-Ohio-913 (9th Dist. Summit No. 25448, 2011) (de novo review for legal issues in post-conviction petitions)
State v. Samuels, 2009-Ohio-1217 (9th Dist. Summit No. 24370, 2009) (procedural requirements for post-conviction petitions)
State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (definition of post-conviction relief)
State v. Barkley, 2005-Ohio-1268 (9th Dist. Summit No. 22351, 2005) (sentencing errors not ordinarily subject to post-conviction relief)