State v. Morris
2021 Ohio 2226
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- David C. Morris, pro se, challenges the 1987 sentencing entry for aggravated murder that used the phrase "the remainder of his natural life," asserting it should have allowed parole eligibility after 20 years under former Ohio law.
- In March 2019 Morris filed a "Motion for De Novo Resentencing to Correct Void Sentence;" the trial court denied relief and this Court previously affirmed, treating the claim as untimely/successive and concluding the sentence was voidable, not void.
- In June 2020 Morris filed a "Motion for Relief from Judgment (Civ.R. 60(B))" repeating the same voidness argument based on the 1987 entry.
- The trial court construed the 2020 motion as an untimely and successive petition for post-conviction relief and denied it; Morris appealed from that denial.
- This Court again overruled Morris’s sole assignment of error, holding the motion was properly treated as a successive post-conviction petition and that the sentencing court had jurisdiction, so any sentencing error was voidable rather than void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1987 sentencing entry phrasing "remainder of his natural life" renders the sentence void and entitles Morris to parole eligibility after 20 years | Morris: phrasing makes sentence void; he should have parole eligibility after 20 years | State: sentencing court had jurisdiction; phrasing, at most, produces a voidable error; relief is procedurally barred as successive/untimely | Court: Sentence is not void where court had jurisdiction; error is voidable. Assignment overruled. |
| Whether Morris’s motion can be considered a Civ.R. 60(B) motion or is an untimely/successive post-conviction petition barred from review | Morris: his filing is a Rule 60(B) motion seeking relief from a void sentence | State: court properly recharacterized the filing as an untimely and successive post-conviction petition and denied it | Court: Motion properly construed as untimely/successive post-conviction relief; barred; court did not reach merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285 (explaining a judgment or sentence is void only if rendered by a court lacking subject-matter or personal jurisdiction)