State v. Ingles
2011 Ohio 2901
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Ingles was convicted in 1998 after a joint trial on five kidnapping counts, two gross sexual imposition counts, and one attempted kidnapping in cases B-9800321 and B-9802147.
- He challenged the convictions on direct appeal and in postconviction proceedings; in 2005 he pursued postconviction motions in the common pleas court, which were again collaterally challenged in 2009 via Civ.R.60(B) motions.
- The 2009 Civ.R.60(B) motions sought relief under Civ.R.60(B) and Crim.R.57, but Crim.R.57 directs use of civil rules only if no criminal rule exists, and RC 2953.21 et seq. provides the exclusive postconviction remedy.
- The trial court should have treated Ingles’s Civ.R.60(B) motions as postconviction petitions under RC 2953.21 et seq.
- IIf filed after the RC 2953.21(A)(2) deadline, the petitions must meet RC 2953.23 requirements; Ingles failed to show unavoidable discovery or a retroactive right and failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that but for trial error no reasonable factfinder would have found guilt.
- Because of the timing and jurisdictional defects, the common pleas court had no jurisdiction to address the merits, and the appellate court modified the judgments to dismiss the motions and affirmed as modified; there is also a separate concurring/dissenting discussion regarding void sentences for certain kidnapping counts under RC 2971.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R.60(B) motions could be entertained as postconviction petitions. | Ingles argues for relief under Civ.R.60(B) and Crim.R.57. | The state contends RC 2953.21 et seq. requires postconviction petitions, not Civ.R.60(B). | Court lacked jurisdiction; must treat as postconviction under RC 2953.21 et seq and dismiss. |
| Whether Ingles’s postconviction petitions were timely or jurisdictionally barred under RC 2953.21(A)(2) and RC 2953.23. | Ingles maintains some recognized bases for relief exist. | State argues petitions were untimely and failed to satisfy RC 2953.23 prerequisites. | Untimely and jurisdictional defects void the court’s authority to review on merits. |
| Whether the common pleas court could entertain tardy petitions or dismiss them under proper grounds. | Ingles contends for substantive review of his claims. | Common pleas court lacked jurisdiction and should dismiss under App.R.12(A)(1)(a). | Appellate court affirmed as modified by dismissing the motions for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 104 Ohio St.3d 106 (2004-Ohio-6238) (holding that a sexually violent-predator specification must be based on preindictment conviction)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (void sentences and reviewability of void judgments in collateral attacks)
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006-Ohio-5795) (jurisdictional limits of postconviction relief proceedings)
- State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 (2009-Ohio-1577) (res judicata and collateral review principles for void sentences)
- State v. Waver, 8th Dist. No. 87495 (2006-Ohio-1743) (Smith claim and the void-vs-voidable analysis in appellate context)