State v. Lawwill
2017 Ohio 8432
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2007 Paul Lawwill pled guilty to one count of aggravated trafficking in drugs (first-degree felony) under an agreed five-year sentence (three years mandatory), $10,000 fine, and consecutive service to other sentences; remaining counts and major-drug specifications were dismissed. He did not file a direct appeal.
- In August 2016, over nine years after conviction, Lawwill filed a pro se "Motion for Injunctive Relief to Correct Illegal Sentence," alleging Double Jeopardy because he had previously been prosecuted and sentenced in federal court for related drug offenses and claimed coercion/false promises induced his subsequent Ohio plea.
- The trial court summarily denied the motion as untimely; Lawwill sought findings and filed multiple post-filing motions and appeals, some procedurally defective or untimely; this court ultimately treated the filing as a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 and considered the merits of timeliness and procedural bars.
- The central procedural question: whether the trial court improperly acted on motions intended for the appellate court; the panel found any such error nonprejudicial because Lawwill had properly perfected an appeal from the trial court's denial.
- On the substantive review, the court held Lawwill’s petition was untimely (filed more than nine years after conviction) and he failed to meet R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) exceptions (unavoidable prevention or a new retroactive right); he offered no affidavits/evidence to support his conspiracy/coercion claims.
- The court also ruled the petition barred by res judicata because Lawwill could have raised his Double Jeopardy claim on direct appeal but did not. Judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of postconviction petition | Lawwill argued his petition attacked an illegal sentence and raised double jeopardy and was thus actionable despite delay | Lawwill conceded petition was late but argued coercion and federal/state conspiracy prevented timely challenge | Petition was untimely; Lawwill failed to show unavoidable prevention or a new retroactive right, so dismissal was proper |
| Requirement to hold evidentiary hearing | Lawwill implied his factual claims (coercion/conspiracy) required a hearing | Trial court maintained record and affidavits did not establish operative facts warranting a hearing under R.C. 2953.21(C) | No abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing because petition lacked sufficient operative facts |
| Res judicata bar to collateral attack | Lawwill contended double jeopardy barred the Ohio conviction because of federal prosecution/conviction | State argued res judicata prevents raising issues that could have been raised on direct appeal | Petition barred by res judicata; Double Jeopardy claim could have been raised on direct appeal but was not |
| Trial court jurisdiction to rule on motions intended for appellate court | Lawwill argued trial court erred by ruling on his motion for reconsideration/leave to file delayed appeal that was directed to the appellate court | State argued any such ruling caused no prejudice because appellant later properly appealed and the appellate court addressed the matters | Any trial-court ruling on motions intended for the appellate court was nonprejudicial; appellant suffered no harm and appeal proceeds |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoun v. State, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (standard for denying postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing)
- Szefcyk v. State, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (definition and meaning of abuse of discretion)