State v. Henderson
2022 Ohio 680
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- In June 2015 Henderson was convicted of second-degree felony child endangering and sentenced to 8 years; conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Henderson filed multiple post-judgment motions pro se, including a July 2018 motion to correct void judgment (denied and affirmed on appeal).
- Henderson filed a postconviction petition on October 30, 2020; the trial court denied it on November 6, 2020, but the clerk did not mail service of the judgment until December 16, 2020.
- Henderson filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment on January 19, 2021, arguing the clerk’s late service deprived him of the opportunity to file a timely appeal.
- The trial court denied the Civ.R. 60(B) motion; Henderson appealed. The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and applied the three-part GTE test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clerk's late mailing of the November 6, 2020 judgment tolled the appellate deadline and warranted Civ.R. 60(B)(5) relief | Appellee: App.R.4(A) governs and restarts the 30-day appeal clock on actual service (Dec.16), so Henderson had until Jan.15 to file an appeal | Henderson: Late clerk service denied him timely notice and thus deprived him of ability to appeal; relief under Civ.R.60(B)(5) is warranted | Held: App.R.4(A) applies; actual service date was Dec.16 so appeal period ran to Jan.15; no entitlement to relief on that ground |
| Whether Henderson satisfied the GTE first prong (alleging a meritorious claim) necessary for Civ.R. 60(B) relief | Appellee: Henderson failed to allege operative facts showing a meritorious claim or defense | Henderson: Asserts the deprivation of notice itself justifies relief and allows presentation of meritorious claims | Held: Henderson did not plead operative facts showing a meritorious defense; therefore he fails the first GTE requirement and relief was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. Arc Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (sets three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Syphard v. Vrable, 141 Ohio App.3d 460 (2001) (movant must plead operative facts showing a meritorious defense)