State v. Parker (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 3848

Background

In 2011 Corey J. Parker pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and to having a weapon while under a disability; a prior juvenile adjudication was treated as a prior conviction under R.C. 2901.08(A), producing a mandatory eight‑year aggregate sentence.
Parker’s direct appeal failed; this court denied discretionary review in 2013. In 2016 this court decided State v. Hand, holding R.C. 2901.08(A) unconstitutional because treating juvenile adjudications as prior convictions is fundamentally unfair.
After Hand, Parker moved to vacate his mandatory sentence on Hand grounds; the trial court denied relief. The court of appeals treated the motion as an untimely petition for postconviction relief, found Hand retroactive, and reversed.
The State appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which framed the question as statutory: whether R.C. 2953.23(A) permits entertaining untimely or successive postconviction petitions that assert a right newly recognized by the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Ohio Supreme Court held the trial court lacked authority to grant Parker’s untimely petition: R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) authorizes exceptions only when the United States Supreme Court (not this court) recognizes a new federal or state right that applies retroactively; the statute contains no parallel exception for decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court.
Because the Court resolved the case on statutory grounds, it did not decide whether Hand itself is retroactive to final convictions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Parker / supporting dissents)	Defendant's Argument (State / majority)	Held
Whether R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) authorizes a common‑pleas court to entertain untimely or successive postconviction petitions based on a new right recognized by the Ohio Supreme Court	The statute’s reference to a “state right” encompasses new rights recognized by this court; permitting relief serves final‑justice and federalism principles (as advanced by dissents)	R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) unambiguously limits the exception to new rights recognized by the United States Supreme Court; the legislature omitted any Ohio‑Supreme‑Court exception	Held for State: statute does not permit untimely/successive petitions based on Ohio Supreme Court decisions; trial court lacked authority to grant relief
Whether Parker’s postconviction petition was timely or otherwise saved by statutory exception	Parker argued Hand requires relief (and some dissents urged alternative procedural vehicles)	State argued petition was untimely and no statutory exception applied	Held for State: petition untimely and neither statutory exception in R.C. 2953.23(A) applied
Whether Hand should be applied retroactively to convictions that were final when announced	Parker (and dissenters) argued Hand announced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively	State argued Hand does not apply retroactively to final convictions	Not decided (majority found resolution unnecessary after deciding statutory issue)
Availability of alternative remedies (Civ.R. 60(B) or void‑sentence/continuing‑jurisdiction doctrines)	Parker/dissenters argued relief could be sought under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) or as correction of a void sentence outside R.C. Chapter 2953	State/majority relied on Schlee and R.C. 2953.21(K) to treat such motions as postconviction relief and to enforce the statutory time limits	Held for State: majority rejected Civ.R. 60(B) and void‑sentence alternatives as routes around R.C. 2953.23(A) in this case

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hand, 73 N.E.3d 448 (Ohio 2016) (declared R.C. 2901.08(A) unconstitutional; treating juvenile adjudications as prior convictions is fundamentally unfair)
State v. Apanovitch, 121 N.E.3d 351 (Ohio 2018) (discusses limits on trial court authority to grant untimely/successive postconviction petitions)
State v. Schlee, 882 N.E.2d 431 (Ohio 2008) (courts may recast post‑judgment motions as petitions for postconviction relief)
State v. Reynolds, 679 N.E.2d 1131 (Ohio 1997) (motions filed after direct appeal that seek vacation/correction of sentence on constitutional grounds are postconviction petitions)
State v. Fischer, 942 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio 2010) (motion to correct illegal/void sentence is an appropriate vehicle and can be filed "at any time" for statutory illegality)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (state collateral courts must grant relief when the proceeding is open to a claim controlled by federal law)
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2004) (distinguishes substantive versus procedural new rules for retroactivity)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules to final convictions)
State v. Szefcyk, 671 N.E.2d 233 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata bars relitigation of constitutional claims absent narrow circumstances)