2014 Ohio 2592
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Aaron Jones was convicted in 2006 of aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary after the victim testified he broke into her home, assaulted her, and his cousin stole money and pills. He received consecutive ten-year terms.
- Jones appealed; this court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal in 2008 after rejecting multiple claims including ineffective assistance, sufficiency and weight of the evidence, speedy trial, and sentencing issues.
- Over several years Jones filed numerous pro se post-conviction and collateral motions raising many of the same claims; most were denied as untimely, successive, or barred by res judicata.
- In December 2011 Jones filed a pro se motion seeking correction/vacatur of his sentence under 2011 H.B. 86 (the so-called "Foster-fix"), arguing his consecutive sentence required resentencing under the new statute.
- The trial court denied the 2011 petition as untimely and successive; the court of appeals affirmed, holding the petition was properly treated as a post-conviction petition, that statutory time/bar requirements applied, and that H.B. 86 does not apply retroactively to his 2006 sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the December 5, 2011 filing is a post-conviction petition | State: The filing is properly treated as a petition for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 | Jones: Treats it as a motion to correct sentence under H.B. 86 rather than post-conviction relief | Court: It is a post-conviction petition and subject to R.C. 2953.21 timing/rules |
| Whether the petition was timely or fit an exception to the untimely/successive bar | State: Petition was untimely/successive and Jones did not satisfy R.C. 2953.23(A) exceptions | Jones: Argues merits based on H.B. 86 and procedural defects; complains state didn’t respond | Court: Untimely/successive; Jones did not show unavoidable prevention or a new retroactive right, so court lacked jurisdiction to hear it |
| Whether failure of the State to respond required relief | State: No statutory mandate to respond to a post-conviction petition | Jones: Claims the court ordered the State to respond and their failure prejudiced him | Court: State’s failure to respond does not entitle petitioner to automatic relief; remedy is to move for ruling without response; no relief granted |
| Whether 2011 H.B. 86 requires resentencing for sentences imposed before its effective date | State: H.B. 86 does not apply retroactively to sentences imposed before its enactment | Jones: Seeks resentencing under H.B. 86 to cure consecutive-sentence findings | Court: H.B. 86 is not retroactive to Jones’s 2006 sentence; resentencing not required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (motion to vacate filed after direct appeal that asserts constitutional violation is a petition for postconviction relief)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010) (Ohio Supreme Court recognized the need for legislative action after Foster regarding consecutive-sentence findings)
- State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303 (2003) (trial court need not issue findings of fact or conclusions of law when dismissing untimely or successive postconviction petitions)
- State ex rel. Carroll v. Corrigan, 84 Ohio St.3d 529 (1999) (same principle regarding dismissal of successive/untimely petitions)
- Gause v. Zaleski, 85 Ohio St.3d 614 (1999) (court need not provide findings when dismissing successive/untimely petitions)
- State v. Skelnar, 71 Ohio App.3d 444 (9th Dist. 1991) (the state is not mandated to respond to a petition for post-conviction relief)