State v. Hibbard
2014 Ohio 442
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Hibbard was arrested in 2001 on multiple warrants and provided information about break-ins after speaking with detectives, leading to surveillance of his statements.
- He was indicted on 41 counts including burglary, theft, and receiving stolen property; suppression of his statements was denied; he went to a bench trial and was acquitted on two counts but convicted on multiple others.
- Hibbard appealed, and convictions were affirmed in a 2003 decision. Nine years later, in 2012, he filed a delayed postconviction petition arguing Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye retroactive rules apply.
- An amended petition followed in 2013, including an affidavit from a cellmate; the trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
- The appellate court held the petition untimely under R.C. 2953.21, found no retroactive right under Lafler/Frye, and concluded the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the untimely petition; assignments of error were overruled, and judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness/jurisdiction of postconviction petition | Hibbard contends untimely filing was excused by 2953.23(A)(1) | Court lacked jurisdiction; untimely petition fails under 2953.21 | Petition untimely; court lacked jurisdiction to entertain. |
| Retroactivity of Lafler/Frye | Lafler/Frye create retroactive rights to effective assistance claims | Courts rejected retroactive application; no new retroactive right | Lafler/Frye do not create retroactive rights for this case. |
| Need for findings of fact/conclusions of law | Petition required findings under 2953.23; due process | No findings needed due to lack of jurisdiction | No error; no evidentiary hearing or findings required when jurisdiction absent. |
| Evidentiary hearing on affidavits | Affidavits showed potential ineffective assistance | affidavits insufficient to raise a valid claim | No evidentiary hearing required given untimeliness and lack of support. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dillingham, 2012-Ohio-5841 (12th Dist. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for postconviction relief)
- State v. Vore, 2013-Ohio-1490 (12th Dist. 2013) (review standard for postconviction relief)
- State v. Piasecki, 2013-Ohio-1191 (8th Dist. 2013) (timeliness and requirements of postconviction petitions)
- State v. Chattams, 2013-Ohio-6172 (12th Dist. 2009) (threshold tests for untimely postconviction relief)
- State v. McMullen, 2007-Ohio-125 (12th Dist. 2007) (no findings required where court lacks jurisdiction)
- State v. Davis, 2013-Ohio-3878 (12th Dist. 2013) (evidentiary hearing not required on self-serving affidavits when jurisdiction absent)
- State v. Anderson, 2013-Ohio-4426 (11th Dist. 2013) (Lafler/Frye not retroactive as a new right)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (clarified ineffective assistance standard; not a new retroactive right)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (effective assistance and plea bargaining standards; not retroactive right)