State v. Martin, 2013 Ohio 2881

Druce E. Martin, proceeding pro se, appeals after the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas overruled his urgent motion for declariter challenging the second superseding indictment.
The superseding indictment charged aggravated murder and aggravated robbery; based on it, a jury trial led to convictions for two murders and one aggravated robbery, with consecutive sentences.
Martin previously pursued a direct appeal (1997) resulting in affirmed convictions and sentences; the Ohio Supreme Court denied further review.
On November 4, 2008, Martin filed a motion to vacate a void judgment, which the court denied on December 10, 2008 without a direct appeal.
On July 2, 2012, Martin filed an “Urgent Motion for Declariter”; the trial court overruled it on August 15, 2012.
The State argues the 2012 motion is actually a petition for postconviction relief, untimely and barred by res judicata; there is no recognized “urgent motion for declariter” under Ohio law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does lack of a time-stamp on the original indictment affect jurisdiction?	Martin contends initiation was void due to no time-stamp.	Martin's challenge is res judicata and waived; issues could have been raised earlier.	Waived/res judicata; indictment timing defects not raised pretrial or on direct appeal.
Whether the superseding indictment was properly filed and respondents may challenge it post-conviction.	Martin argues the superseding indictment is constitutionally invalid.	Issues already litigated; pending challenges are barred as res judicata.	Res judicata; challenge to the superseding indictment barred.
Whether Martin's urgent motion for declariter can be treated as a petition for postconviction relief and timely filed.	Motion challenges constitutional rights via declariter framing.	Motion should be construed as postconviction relief; untimely and barred.	Untimely and res judicata; should be dismissed.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (postconviction relief timeliness; res judicata principles)
State v. Downie, 183 Ohio App.3d 665 (2009-Ohio-4643) (presumption of regularity; proper standard applied by reviewing court)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata; final judgment bars new defenses)