State v. Harris, 2013 Ohio 4818

Ronald E. Harris II was convicted in 2006 of multiple felonies (four counts of felonious assault, discharge of a firearm into a habitation, and two counts of having a weapon while under disability) with several firearm specifications; aggregate sentence 12 years. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Harris, 2008-Ohio-1753.
Harris filed a pro se post-conviction petition in 2007 raising six claims; the trial court denied it and this Court affirmed in 2008 (Harris II) for failure to present sufficient operative facts for a hearing.
On January 2, 2013, Harris filed a motion requesting re-sentencing under H.B. 86 (and references to H.B. 487), seeking retroactive application to reduce his sentence, jail credit, and/or risk-reduction credits.
The trial court denied the 2013 re-sentencing motion on February 11, 2013; Harris timely appealed that denial to the Second District Court of Appeals.
The court addressed whether H.B. 86 (sentencing changes effective in 2011) or H.B. 487 (risk reduction/jail credit) applied retroactively, and whether various other claims (evidence admissibility, venue, suppression, prosecutorial/juror/witness misconduct) were reviewable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retroactive application of H.B. 86 to reduce sentence	Harris: H.B. 86 should apply retroactively so his 2006 sentence is reduced	State: H.B. 86 applies only as the statute prescribes; does not apply to offenses committed before effective date	Held: R.C. 1.58(B) bars retroactive application; H.B. 86 does not apply to Harris’s 2006 convictions; motion denied
Jail-time credit / risk-reduction under H.B. 487	Harris: Entitled to jail credit and/or risk-reduction sentencing	State: Harris failed to show entitlement or explain retroactive application	Held: Harris failed to demonstrate error or entitlement; claim denied
Other trial errors (evidence, venue, suppression, prosecutorial/juror misconduct, witness availability)	Harris: Raised multiple trial-related errors seeking relief now	State: Those claims were or could have been raised on direct appeal	Held: Claims are barred by res judicata (Perry); cannot be relitigated in this post-conviction motion
Declaratory relief / writs re: prison employment/art/assessments	Harris: Sought declaratory judgment/writs and other retroactive relief	State: Not applicable given sentencing/statutory limits and res judicata	Held: Court rejected these ancillary/rambling requests; no relief granted

Perry, 226 N.E.2d 104 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars claims raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal)