State v. Selmon
2016 Ohio 723
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In April 2006 Selmon was convicted by jury of multiple third-degree felonies and sentenced to an aggregate 12-year prison term; the April 28, 2006 sentencing entry did not specify a restitution amount.
- Selmon appealed; this court affirmed in March 2007 and the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed further review.
- Selmon subsequently filed multiple motions (including motions to vacate fines/costs, motions alleging the sentencing entry was void for failing to state restitution, motions for judicial release) and a federal habeas petition; most were denied or dismissed.
- On May 25, 2012 and again on June 22, 2015 Selmon filed motions in the trial court seeking correction/revision of the sentencing entry on the restitution ground; the trial court dismissed the 2012 and 2015 motions as untimely petitions for post-conviction relief barred by res judicata.
- Selmon appealed the August 27, 2015 dismissal; he contended the sentencing entry was not a final appealable order because restitution amount was unspecified, the trial court misclassified his motion as post-conviction relief, and therefore res judicata/time bars should not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Selmon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the April 28, 2006 sentencing entry is a final, appealable order despite not specifying restitution | The sentencing claim could have been raised on direct appeal and is therefore barred by res judicata | The missing restitution amount renders the sentencing entry non-final and prevented appellate jurisdiction; relief still available | Court held the claim was ripe for direct appeal and is barred by res judicata; not a basis to void the entry |
| Whether the trial court erred by treating Selmon’s motion as a petition for post-conviction relief | The court properly treated the later motion as a post-conviction petition under R.C. 2953.21 because it sought vacation/correction of sentence after direct appeal | Selmon argued the motion was not post-conviction relief and should not be subject to filing-time restrictions | Court held the motion was properly characterized as post-conviction relief and therefore subject to statutory time limits |
| Whether Selmon’s June 22, 2015 petition was timely or fell within statutory exceptions to the 365-day filing limit | The petition was filed well after the statutory 365-day deadline and Selmon did not establish statutory exceptions in R.C. 2953.23 | Selmon argued the sentencing entry’s alleged defect prevented finality and justified relief despite delay | Court held the petition was untimely under R.C. 2953.21 and Selmon failed to satisfy R.C. 2953.23 exceptions (no newly discovered facts or new retroactive right) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (establishes res judicata bar to claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (motion to vacate or correct sentence after direct appeal is a petition for post-conviction relief)
- State v. Millanovich, 42 Ohio St.2d 46 (1975) (post-conviction relief proper only for claims that could not have been raised on direct appeal because supporting evidence lies outside the record)