State v. Struckman, 2022 Ohio 2848

Buddy Struckman was convicted in 2018 of two counts of unlawful possession of a dangerous ordnance (an automatic firearm and a suppressor).
He lost a direct appeal and a 2020 postconviction challenge before filing a second postconviction petition in 2021 under R.C. 2953.21 et seq.
Struckman alleged the state suppressed/excluded exculpatory evidence: (a) his municipal-court acquittal on related drug charges and (b) an August 2016 police incident report showing other people had access to the residence at 622 Maple Street.
He submitted the municipal-court transcript and judgment entry, the affidavit underlying the municipal complaint, a mail log showing he received the transcript in April 2021, an excerpt of his felony-trial transcript where the incident report was discussed, and the August 2016 incident report.
The common pleas court dismissed the petition as untimely and without jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23 because Struckman could not show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence and did not meet the clear-and-convincing prejudice standard.
The First District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the evidence was known or made known at the time of trial and no jurisdictional exception applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Struckman)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Timeliness of petition under R.C. 2953.21	The petition is a late/successive filing but an exception applies because he was unavoidably prevented from discovering key evidence	The petition is time-barred and no exception applies	Petition is time-barred; exception not satisfied
Whether he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence	He only recently discovered why he was acquitted in municipal court (that others may have had access) and the incident report was suppressed	The municipal-court transcript, judgment entry, and incident-report information were available at or before the felony trial	No unavoidable-prevention shown; evidence was known or available
Alleged suppression/Brady violation	Prosecutor suppressed the municipal acquittal basis and the August 2016 incident report, denying a fair trial	The municipal-court judgment entry was submitted at the felony trial and the transcript shows Struckman questioned officers about the incident report; nothing was suppressed	No suppression; Struckman had access to the materials at trial
Prejudice standard under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b) (clear-and-convincing)	The newly presented evidence would have prevented any reasonable factfinder from convicting him	Struckman cannot show by clear-and-convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would convict absent constitutional error	Failed to meet clear-and-convincing prejudice requirement

State v. Struckman, 159 Ohio St.3d 1446 (Ohio 2020) (direct-appeal disposition; appeal not accepted by Ohio Supreme Court)
State v. Struckman, 165 Ohio St.3d 1456 (Ohio 2021) (postconviction appeal disposition; appeal not accepted by Ohio Supreme Court)