State v. Kent, 2013 Ohio 5090

Kent was convicted on two counts for cocaine possession and possession of criminal tools after a suppression motion and plea negotiations; he rejected a plea offer and proceeded to trial.
The trial court sentenced Kent to a mandatory ten-year term.
On direct appeal, this court rejected his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim related to the plea rejection.
Kent later filed multiple postconviction-relief petitions, the latest being untimely and treated as barred by res judicata.
The trial court denied the latest petition as untimely and barred; Kent appeals the denial.
This court affirms the trial court, holding the petition was untimely and barred by res judicata.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the untimely postconviction petition.	Kent argues Lafler created a new retroactive right that permits untimely relief.	State asserts Lafler did not establish a new retroactive right and the petition is untimely and barred.	No abuse of discretion; petition not eligible under R.C. 2953.23 and barred by res judicata.

State v. Dillingham, 2012-Ohio-5841 (12th Dist. Butler 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for postconviction appeals)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (postconviction review limited to trial errors; ineffective assistance claims analyzed via Strickland)
State v. Vore, 2013-Ohio-1490 (12th Dist. Warren 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard and timeliness requirements in postconviction relief)
State v. Wagers, 2012-Ohio-2258 (12th Dist. Preble 2012) (res judicata applied to postconviction petitions; exception for new evidence outside record)
State v. Rose, 2012-Ohio-5957 (12th Dist. Butler 2012) (R.C. 2953.23 limitations; sentencing claims generally not addressed except capital cases)