2021 Ohio 3470
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- In 2015 Hendrix was convicted after a jury found him guilty of four counts of attempted murder and one count of having weapons while under a disability following a neighborhood shootout.
- Hendrix exhausted direct appeals and earlier postconviction efforts; Ohio Supreme Court declined further review of prior appeals.
- In 2019 Hendrix filed a single document labeled a postconviction petition under R.C. 2953.21 et seq., alternatively invoking Civ.R. 60(B), alleging (inter alia) prosecutorial nondisclosure, false testimony about number/type of shooters, and trial-counsel ineffectiveness for failing to obtain medical records and expert testimony supporting his self-defense/upward-trajectory theory.
- Hendrix submitted medical records and affidavits from his trial counsel and a medical/forensic-pathology expert; he did not submit his own affidavit asserting unavoidable prevention.
- The common pleas court dismissed the postconviction motion for lack of jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23 and later dismissed a separate Motion to Inspect/Test State evidence as moot; Hendrix appealed both dismissals.
- The court of appeals affirmed dismissal of the postconviction motion (C-190701) and dismissed the appeal from the evidence-inspection motion for lack of appellate jurisdiction (C-190702).
Issues:
| Issue | State's Argument | Hendrix's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) provided an alternate basis for relief from a criminal conviction | Civ.R. 60(B) is a civil rule; Crim.R.57(B) need not import Civ.R.60(B) where Crim.R.35 governs postconviction petitions | Civ.R.60(B) could be used alternatively to obtain relief from conviction | Court: Civ.R.60(B) inapplicable; Crim.R.35 governs postconviction claims, so court properly declined to treat petition as a Civ.R.60(B) motion |
| Whether the court had jurisdiction under R.C.2953.23 to entertain a late/successive postconviction petition | The postconviction statutes apply and require showing unavoidable prevention or a new retroactive right plus clear-and-convincing proof that no reasonable factfinder would convict | Hendrix argued he was unavoidably prevented from discovering medical/evidentiary support until appellate counsel produced files and an expert analyzed them | Court: Hendrix failed R.C.2953.23(A)(1) — he did not show by clear and convincing evidence that, but for error, no reasonable factfinder would convict; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper |
| Whether dismissal without an evidentiary hearing violated Hendrix's right to present his postconviction claims | The State argued the jurisdictional gatekeeping provisions permit dismissal without hearing when R.C.2953.23 requirements are not met | Hendrix argued his proffered medical records and expert and counsel affidavits warranted a hearing | Court: No error — where R.C.2953.23(A)(1) is not satisfied, dismissal without hearing is proper |
| Whether the trial court and this court had jurisdiction to review Hendrix’s Motion to Inspect/Test State evidence | State argued the motion was not cast under any cognizable postconviction or other statutory procedure and thus not a proceeding from which appeal lies | Hendrix sought inspection/testing of physical evidence and claimed entitlement to review | Court: The motion was not filed in any cognizable action or proceeding; common pleas court lacked a statutory basis to review it, and this court lacked appellate jurisdiction — appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schlee, 882 N.E.2d 431 (Ohio 2008) (trial court may "recast" improperly labelled motions to identify proper procedural vehicle)
- State v. Hendrix, 58 N.E.3d 1175 (Ohio 2016) (prior appeal addressing use of victims' statements in cross-examination)
- State v. Hendrix, 123 N.E.3d 1036 (Ohio 2019) (subsequent appeal history; Supreme Court declined further review)