2021 Ohio 1670
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Pierre Taylor was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary, domestic-violence–related offenses, aggravated menacing and assault, and forfeiture of a Hi-Point handgun; DNA on the gun and a spent casing linked the firearm to the shooting.
- Taylor filed a direct appeal; this court affirmed his convictions in 2019. Transcripts for the direct appeal were completed by August 8, 2018.
- After the direct appeal, Taylor filed multiple pro se filings (postconviction petitions, motions for new trial, request for Brady/exculpatory materials) claiming withheld phone-call recordings, perjured testimony/false statements in the search-warrant affidavit, ineffective assistance, and newly discovered witnesses/messages.
- The trial court treated the filings as petitions under Ohio’s postconviction statute (R.C. 2953.21) and denied them as untimely (filed beyond the 365-day limit) and denied leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 new-trial motion (filed beyond 120 days) for failing to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence.
- Taylor appealed; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief finding no non-frivolous issues. The panel conducted an independent Anders review and affirmed the trial court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Taylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of postconviction petitions under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) | Petitions were filed after the 365-day deadline; trial transcripts were filed Aug. 2018, so petitions (Aug–Sept 2019) were untimely | Petitions raise due-process void-judgment/fraud-on-the-court claims (perjury/search-warrant falsehoods) and thus can be considered at any time | Court held petitions untimely; Taylor failed to show a new Supreme Court right or unavoidable prevention to excuse delay; petitions properly dismissed |
| Claim that conviction is void due to alleged perjured testimony/fraud on the court | State: claims are collateral and subject to postconviction statute; Fischer/Billiter do not create a new retroactive right that excuses untimeliness | Taylor relied on Ohio cases (Fischer, Billiter) and federal due-process principles to argue a void judgment can be attacked anytime | Court rejected Taylor’s argument: Fischer/Billiter don’t create a new federal right and have been superseded by State v. Harper; sentence/conviction not void on that basis |
| Motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (Crim.R. 33(B)) — Kendra Lane, JPay messages, other witnesses | State: Taylor failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering witnesses/evidence within 120 days; the JPay messages did not show newly dispositive evidence | Taylor: late-learned witness (Kendra Lane) and messages show C.T. recanted/was coerced; thus leave to file delayed new-trial motion should be granted | Court held Taylor did not provide clear-and-convincing proof of unavoidable prevention or that the evidence would likely change the verdict; leave denied; new-trial claim lacked arguable merit |
| Requests for subpoenas and disclosure of Brady/exculpatory material in postconviction proceedings | State: no entitlement to discovery in non-capital postconviction proceedings; petitions were untimely so discovery requests were moot | Taylor: prosecution withheld exculpatory phone recordings and other Brady material; subpoenas and disclosure were necessary to develop claims | Court held discovery is not a right in non-capital postconviction collateral proceedings; denial was not error, particularly because petitions were untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedural standard when appointed counsel concludes appeal is frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (confirming appellate obligations after an Anders brief)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution duty to disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 159 N.E.3d 248 (Ohio Supreme Court: returns to traditional void/voidable-judgment principles)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 942 N.E.2d 332 (addressed collateral attack on sentences lacking postrelease control; not a new federal right)
- State v. Billiter, 134 Ohio St.3d 103, 980 N.E.2d 960 (related postrelease-control collateral-attack discussion)
- State ex rel. George v. Burnside, 118 Ohio St.3d 406, 889 N.E.2d 533 (no duty to issue findings on untimely/successive postconviction petitions)