2017 Ohio 8217
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Robert L. Hillman was convicted by a jury (Feb. 2014) on multiple counts arising from two indictments (cases 13CR-6206 and 13CR-6648) and sentenced to aggregate prison terms. He represented himself at trial.
- In case 13CR-6648 the court merged Counts 2 (theft) and 3 (receiving stolen property) for sentencing and imposed a single 12-month term for the merged counts, plus a six-year term for burglary; those sentences were concurrent with each other but consecutive to the other case.
- In case 13CR-6206 the court imposed two- and six-year terms on other counts, with some sentences ordered consecutive and some concurrent, resulting in an effective lengthy term.
- Hillman pursued direct appeal (affirmed by this court) and extensive post-judgment motions; this court previously remanded only to correct a clerical error.
- On January 24, 2017 Hillman filed another motion to vacate his sentences (construed as a postconviction petition). The trial court denied the motion as not well-taken. Hillman appealed; trial court also denied his motion to strike appellee’s brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hillman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / jurisdiction of postconviction petition | The petition is untimely under R.C. 2953.21 and the court lacks jurisdiction; exceptions not met | Hillman contends his sentence is void (error in merging allied offenses) and seeks relief regardless of timing | Petition is untimely (transcript filed 6/6/2014; 365-day deadline expired) and no statutory exception applies; trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it |
| Res judicata / merit of merger claim and need for findings | State argues the merger issue was previously litigated and resolved on direct appeal; trial court need not issue findings on an untimely/successive petition | Hillman argues theft and receiving should have merged into one conviction and that the court erred/not follow stare decisis; also complained trial court failed to issue findings of fact/conclusions of law | Res judicata bars the claim; record and judgment entry show theft and receiving were merged; trial court properly denied relief and had no duty to issue findings on a successive/untimely petition |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (recognizes that a postconviction motion raising constitutional sentencing errors is properly treated under R.C. 2953.21)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (res judicata applies to postconviction proceedings)
- State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (postconviction relief is narrow; claims that were or could have been raised at trial/direct appeal are barred)
- State ex rel. George v. Burnside, 118 Ohio St.3d 406 (trial court has no duty to issue findings on successive or untimely postconviction petitions)