State v. Mitchell
2017 Ohio 8440
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- James E. Mitchell pleaded guilty in 1994 to burglary (F2) and gross sexual imposition (F3); sentenced to concurrent terms (3–15 years and 2 years).
- He moved pre-sentence to withdraw his pleas in June 1994; the trial court denied the motion and entered sentence; this court affirmed on direct appeal in 1995.
- In November 2016 Mitchell filed a pro se combined Petition for Postconviction Relief (R.C. 2953.21) and a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw plea; the trial court summarily denied relief on November 17, 2016.
- Mitchell also filed motions to disqualify the Portage County Prosecutor’s Office and for appointment of counsel; after additional filings the trial court denied those on January 30, 2017. Mitchell appealed both entries and the appeals were consolidated.
- The trial court concluded (and the court of appeals reviewed): (1) the postconviction petition was untimely and Mitchell failed to meet R.C. 2953.23 exceptions; (2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the untimely petition; (3) the Crim.R. 32.1 denial was a criminal ruling and Mitchell’s appeal of that portion was untimely; and (4) no disqualification hearing was required on these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mitchell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mitchell's appeal of the November 17, 2016 order denying postconviction relief is moot | Not moot (argued dismissal/mootness) — state initially urged mootness but court rejected for felonies completed earlier than appeal pendency | Mitchell argued a postconviction petitioner need not be in custody to obtain relief; appeal should proceed | Court held appeal not moot for the postconviction portion (felony context; Golston/Turpin principles apply). |
| Whether the appeal from the November 17, 2016 order was timely given Civ.R. 58(B) service requirements | State argued appeal was untimely | Mitchell argued clerk failed to serve Civ.R. 58(B) notice so appeal period did not run | Court held Civ.R. 58(B) service was not made/entered for the civil (postconviction) portion, so the appeal of that portion was timely; but Civ.R. 58(B) does not apply to the criminal (Crim.R. 32.1 denial) portion, which is untimely. |
| Whether the trial court erred by summarily denying the untimely postconviction petition without a merits hearing or findings | State maintained the petition was untimely and R.C. 2953.23 exceptions were not satisfied | Mitchell asserted he was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering exculpatory evidence and thus met R.C. 2953.23; he also sought findings and a hearing | Court held the petition was untimely and Mitchell failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts; court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits, so no findings or hearing were required. |
| Whether the Portage County Prosecutor’s Office should have been disqualified due to former trial counsel joining the office | State opposed disqualification; no use of information in postconviction proceedings | Mitchell argued a presumption of shared confidential information required disqualification or a hearing (citing Kala) | Court held denial of disqualification was not error on these facts: proceedings were remote in time, prosecutor did not oppose petition, no hearing occurred where shared information could have been used, so Mitchell's confidentiality interests were not prejudiced. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 236 (1975) (mootness rule for completed sentences where no collateral disability is shown)
- State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224 (1994) (clarifies that a felony convictee who completes sentence need not show collateral disability to pursue appeal)
- State v. Turpin, 19 Ohio App.2d 116 (1969) (postconviction relief may be sought by those not in custody to remove stigma of a served long sentence)
- In re Anderson, 92 Ohio St.3d 63 (2001) (App.R. 4(A) tolling rules tied to Civ.R. 58(B) service)
- Kala v. Aluminum Smelting & Refining Co., Inc., 81 Ohio St.3d 1 (1998) (disqualification standards and presumption of shared confidences when counsel switches sides)