State v. Palmer, 2012 Ohio 5255

Appellant Atropin Palmer was convicted in 2004 of aggravated burglary and escape in Jefferson County; convictions affirmed but remanded for resentencing.
Palmer was resentenced on April 11, 2006 to a total of ten years; the sentence was affirmed on direct appeal.
Palmer filed multiple postconviction petitions (2005, 2008) which were denied and affirmed on appeal.
On May 2, 2011, Palmer filed the motion presently before the court seeking a new trial or dismissal based on a statutory speedy-trial claim under R.C. 2945.71.
The trial court denied the 2011 motion on May 5, 2011; this appeal followed and was treated as an appeal of the denial of a postconviction relief petition.
The issues center on whether Palmer’s statutory speedy-trial claim is barred by res judicata and whether postconviction relief is the proper vehicle for such a claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does res judicata bar Palmer's speedy-trial claim?	Palmer argues the speedy-trial issue was not previously adjudicated on direct appeal.	State relies on res judicata because the issue could have been raised earlier and was not.	Yes; res judicata bars the speedy-trial claim.
Is a statutory speedy-trial claim cognizable in postconviction relief proceedings?	Palmer framed the issue as postconviction relief and asserts constitutional rights were violated.	Postconviction relief must concern constitutional violations; statutory claims are not proper in this forum.	No; postconviction relief applies only to constitutional claims, so the statutory issue is not proper.
Does Palmer's petition qualify as a second or successive postconviction petition under RC 2953.23?	Palmer contends the petition seeks relief from a speedy-trial issue not previously resolved.	The petition fails to satisfy RC 2953.23 prerequisites for a second or successive petition.	No jurisdiction to entertain; petition does not satisfy RC 2953.23 requirements.

State v. Houston, 73 Ohio St.3d 346 (1995) (res judicata bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Ross, 2012-Ohio-2433 (7th Dist. 2012) (speedy-trial claims raised via postconviction relief)
State v. Green, 2010-Ohio-6271 (7th Dist. 2010) (precludes raising speedy-trial claims not raised on direct appeal)
State v. Davis, 2009-Ohio-4634 (7th Dist. 2009) (postconviction relief confines to constitutional claims)
State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (defines postconviction relief scope)
State v. Butler, 2010-Ohio-2537 (7th Dist. 2010) (jurisdictional limits for successive postconviction petitions)
State v. Haschenburger, 2009-Ohio-6527 (7th Dist. 2009) (precludes unauthorized postconviction filings)
State v. Brothers, 2010-Ohio-3987 (7th Dist. 2010) (sua sponte consideration of jurisdictional issues)