State v. Johnson, 2020 Ohio 3371

Background

Johnson was indicted (2017) for attempted felony murder and three counts of aggravated arson after pouring gasoline into a basement window and setting it on fire. He waived a jury and was convicted at a bench trial.
The trial court sentenced Johnson to consecutive terms totaling 27 years and ordered $5,000 restitution.
On direct appeal (Johnson I), this court vacated the attempted-felony-murder conviction (not a cognizable Ohio offense), affirmed aggravated-arson convictions, reversed restitution, and remanded for limited resentencing and an evidentiary hearing on restitution.
After multiple proceedings and a subsequent remand (Johnson II) limiting resentencing to one count, Johnson filed motions: a motion for leave to file a second motion for a new trial and an amended petition for postconviction relief asserting his jury waiver was invalid because he was not informed of the noncognizable attempted-felony-murder charge.
The trial court denied both the motion for leave to file a new trial and the amended postconviction petition; Johnson appealed those denials.
The appellate court affirmed: the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave or an evidentiary hearing, and Johnson’s postconviction claims were barred by res judicata and meritless.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Johnson's Argument	Held
1) Denial of leave to file a new trial motion	Trial court properly denied leave because Johnson offered no timely justification for delay	He was unavoidably prevented from discovering grounds for a new trial and a miscarriage of justice occurred due to an invalid jury waiver	Court affirmed denial; no abuse of discretion because Johnson failed to justify the delay
2) Denial without an evidentiary hearing on new-trial leave	No hearing required where movant did not show unavoidable prevention or operative facts needing live proof	An evidentiary hearing was required because his facts (invalid waiver/jurisdictional error) entitled him to relief if true	Court affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion in declining a hearing
3) Refusal to allow amendment of postconviction petition	The amended claims were meritless and/or barred; the court considered and denied the amended petition	He was unavoidably prevented from timely raising the claim and the waiver was involuntary because the charge was noncognizable	Court treated petition as denied on its merits; affirmed because claims were barred by res judicata and failed on merits
4) Denial of postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing	No hearing required where claims were previously litigated or insufficient on their face	A hearing was required because operative facts (invalid jury waiver) would entitle him to relief if proven	Court affirmed; no abuse of discretion in denying a hearing given res judicata and lack of merit

Key Cases Cited

State v. Johnson, 119 N.E.3d 914 (8th Dist. 2018) (vacating attempted-felony-murder conviction and remanding)
State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978) (limits on trial-court action during pending appeals)
Howard v. Catholic Social Servs., 70 Ohio St.3d 141 (1994) (rules on jurisdictional interplay between proceedings)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (standard of review for denial of postconviction relief)
State v. White, 118 Ohio St.3d 12 (2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 (2016) (res judicata bars constitutional claims in postconviction relief that were or could have been raised earlier)
State v. Lott, 97 Ohio St.3d 303 (2002) (res judicata principles reiterated)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (foundational rule on collateral attack and res judicata)