State v. Reed, 2013 Ohio 5145

Defendant-appellant John A. Reed was convicted in 2008 of possession of crack cocaine with a major drug specification for 100+ grams and sentenced to 14 years.
This Court previously affirmed Reed’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal in 2009 (State v. Reed, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-84, 2009-Ohio-6900).
In July 2011 Reed moved to vacate his sentence, arguing the major-drug-offender specification was severed by Foster; the trial court denied and this court affirmed (State v. Reed, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-792, 2012-Ohio-1612).
On February 21, 2013 Reed filed a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.23 alleging ineffective assistance, double jeopardy, Fourth Amendment violations, and sentencing issues.
The trial court denied the petition as untimely, barred by res judicata, and lacking merit; Reed appeals challenging these rulings.
The appellate court ultimately affirmed, holding the petition untimely and that exceptions to untimeliness were not demonstrated, with the other assignments rendered moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the postconviction petition was timely.	Reed argues untimely filing was excused by new rights recognized in Lafler/Frye.	State argues no applicable exception under R.C. 2953.23 allowed review of an untimely/successive petition.	Petition untimely; no retroactive new-right exception applied.
Whether res judicata barred review of the postconviction petition.	Reed contends issues were not previously or adequately adjudicated.	State contends res judicata forecloses review of untimely/successive petitions.	Res judicata bars review; petition properly denied.
Whether the petition should be adjudicated on the merits.	Reed asserts ineffective assistance and other claims merit consideration.	State asserts lack of jurisdiction/non-merits due to untimeliness and res judicata.	Because the petition was untimely and barred by res judicata, the merits were not reached.

State v. Martin, 2006-Ohio-4229 (10th Dist. No. 05AP-495, 2006-Ohio-4229) (establishes timing exceptions prerequisites for postconviction petitions)
State v. Schoolcraft, 2006-Ohio-3139 (4th Dist. No. 05CA29, 2006-Ohio-3139) (explains criteria for exceptions to untimeliness)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard in appellate review)
Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (recognizes a plea-negotiation right but not a new retroactive rule)
Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (clarifies ineffective assistance in plea bargaining context)
State v. Isa, 2013-Ohio-3382 (2d Dist. No. 2012-CA-44, 2013-Ohio-3382) (peripheral discussion about retroactivity of new-right claims)