State v. Harding, 2022 Ohio 3595

Harding drove a car with passenger Craig Voigt on I‑70; troopers stopped the vehicle for following a semi too closely after a canine alerted at the rear passenger door, and officers found 123 pounds of marijuana.
Dashcam footage (from the arresting trooper) recorded the stop; Harding has long claimed the video used at trial was altered and that a copy sent to defense expert Primeau contained additional backseat telemetry and audio.
Harding was convicted by a jury of possession and criminal tools and sentenced to eight years; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
Harding filed a first postconviction relief (PCR) petition alleging Brady violations, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance (including failure to compare videos and obtain Primeau’s final report); the trial court denied it as barred by res judicata and this court affirmed.
Harding filed a second, untimely/successive PCR petition alleging (1) fraud on the court by defense counsel for representing Primeau had formed an opinion and (2) inexcusable neglect for counsel’s failure to compare videos and seek a continuance; the trial court denied the second petition as res judicata and untimely/successive.
The Twelfth District affirmed: Harding failed to show newly discovered evidence outside the record or satisfy statutory exceptions to revive an untimely/successive PCR, and the contested exhibits were not sufficiently cogent to overcome res judicata.

Issue	Harding's Argument	State/Trial Court's Argument	Held
Whether counsel committed "fraud upon the court" by telling the trial judge Primeau had expressed an opinion when no final report existed	Counsel misrepresented Primeau’s position; Primeau’s later email shows no final report, so counsel lied	Counsel could have orally received an opinion from Primeau while Primeau withheld a written report until paid; evidence was known and could have been raised earlier	Denied — not fraud; claim barred by res judicata and not newly discovered evidence
Whether trial counsel’s failure to compare the video shown at trial with the copy sent to Primeau and to request a continuance amounted to inexcusable neglect	Counsel’s failure to compare videos and to have Primeau do so prejudiced the defense and constituted inexcusable neglect	The stills/exhibits do not show material evidence affecting probable cause or admissibility; the alleged differences were available earlier and are a re‑packaging of prior claims	Denied — claim barred by res judicata; exhibits not competent, relevant, and material outside the record

State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1982) (addressed appealability of trial-court entries denying PCR without findings)
State ex rel. Penland v. Dinkelacker, 162 Ohio St.3d 59 (Ohio 2020) (held judgments granting or denying PCR are final, appealable orders under R.C. 2953.23)
State v. Apanovitch, 155 Ohio St.3d 358 (Ohio 2018) (explains jurisdictional limits on untimely or successive PCR petitions and statutory exceptions)
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata bars claims raised or that could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal)
State ex rel. Fuller v. Sutula, 86 Ohio St.3d 301 (Ohio 1999) (trial court need not issue findings when denying a second or successive PCR)