State v. Rose, 2012 Ohio 5957

Rose pled guilty in 2007 to three felonies tied to a fraudulent investment scheme; restitution of about $17.7 million was ordered with records from a court-appointed receiver; Rose appealed and pursued postconviction relief unsuccessfully; he later sought a restitution and resentencing hearing which the trial court denied as barred by res judicata; this court previously addressed related claims in CA2010-03-059 and held those facts were not newly discovered evidence and that Rose could have discovered them earlier; the appellate court reviews whether postconviction relief and/or resentencing are permissible under R.C. 2953.21, 2953.23, and res judicata; the court ultimately held the petition was barred by jurisdictional limits and res judicata and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rose is entitled to a restitution/resentencing hearing	Rose contends new evidence shows lower losses; entitles him to resentencing and a restitution hearing	Res judicata/jurisdiction bars relitigation; information was not new	No; res judicata and jurisdiction bar relief; no resentencing hearing
Whether R.C. 2929.18 requires a restitution hearing given disputes about losses	Court should hold a restitution hearing due to disputed losses	statute allows restitution based on existing loss evidence; no hearing required where not required by statute	Not warranted here; petition barred and no hearing required
Whether postconviction relief was properly barred by R.C. 2953.23 and untimeliness/successive-petition rules	New evidence supports bringing a postconviction claim	Petition fails to meet criteria; timely, successive petition requirements not satisfied	Barred; petition did not meet R.C. 2953.23(A) requirements
Whether res judicata bars Rose from relitigating issues already raised or could have been raised	Information was not previously available for challenge	Evidence existed in the record; issues could have been raised earlier	Barred by res judicata; relief denied

State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (postconviction relief as exclusive remedy; procedural limits)
State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 (2002) (establishes limits on postconviction relief and procedure)
Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (res judicata and scope of postconviction review)
State v. Rutledge, 2012-Ohio-2036 (2012) (res judicata; explicit limitations on successive petitions)
State v. Lawson, 103 Ohio App.3d 307 (1995) (deportment of evidence outside the record and res judicata)
State v. Mason, 2012-Ohio-4510 (2012) (affirming res judicata and lack of jurisdiction in postconviction context)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (syllabus on final judgments and due process)