2026-Ohio-1427
Ohio2026Background
- Hill was convicted in 1986 of aggravated arson, kidnapping, rape, felonious sexual penetration, and aggravated murder for the torture and killing of Raymond Fife. 1
- This court affirmed Hill’s convictions and sentences in 1992 and later described his intellectual disability evidence as possibly mitigating but insufficient under the record then before it. 2
- After Atkins and Ohio’s initial Lott standard, Hill filed a 2003 postconviction petition asserting intellectual disability, and the trial court denied relief in 2006. 3
- After Hall and Moore, Ohio later rejected the Lott standard in Ford and adopted a different intellectual-disability test. 4
- Hill then sought to reopen the 2006 postconviction judgment by filing a Civ.R. 60(B)(4) and (5) motion based on Ford and a new expert affidavit. 5
- The trial court treated the motion as a successive postconviction petition and the Eleventh District held Civ.R. 60(B) was the proper vehicle, prompting this appeal. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Hill use Civ.R. 60(B) to reopen denial of postconviction relief? 7 | Hill said Civ.R. 60(B) could attack the prior civil judgment denying postconviction relief. | The State said R.C. 2953.21 and 2953.23 provide the exclusive remedy. | No; Civ.R. 60(B) is inapplicable and successive relief must proceed under the postconviction statutes. 8 |
| Are postconviction proceedings special statutory proceedings outside the Civil Rules? 9 | Hill argued the Civil Rules apply to the postconviction judgment. | The State argued postconviction proceedings are special statutory proceedings with clearly inapplicable Civil Rules. | Yes; postconviction-relief proceedings are special statutory proceedings, so Civ.R. 60(B) does not apply. 10 |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled persons 11)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (U.S. 2014) (states must use medically informed intellectual-disability standards 12)
- Moore v. Texas, 581 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2017) (states may not ignore current clinical standards in Atkins determinations 13)
- Shoop v. Hill, 586 U.S. 45 (U.S. 2019) (federal habeas review must rely on clearly established Supreme Court holdings at the relevant time 14)
- Young v. Ragen, 337 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1949) (states must provide a defined method for raising federal-rights claims 15)
- Price v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 70 Ohio St.2d 131 (Ohio 1982) (a civil rule is clearly inapplicable when it would alter the statutory purpose 16)