2019 Ohio 3175
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In April 2014 a jury convicted Daniel Teitelbaum of aggravated murder (merged), aggravated burglary, and tampering with evidence; he received life without parole plus concurrent and consecutive terms. His direct appeal was affirmed and the Ohio Supreme Court denied jurisdictional review.
- Teitelbaum filed an R.C. 2953.21 postconviction petition in July 2015 raising ineffective-assistance and evidentiary claims; the trial court denied relief and appellate attempts failed.
- On February 4, 2019 Teitelbaum filed a Civ.R. 60(B) "Motion for Relief from Judgment" invoking Carpenter v. United States (2018) as newly recognized Fourth Amendment law and alleging fraud/collusion by prosecutors and defense counsel.
- The trial court denied the Civ.R. 60(B) motion; Teitelbaum appealed. The appellate court treated the motion as a postconviction petition under R.C. 2953.21 because it sought to vacate the criminal conviction on constitutional grounds.
- The court held the filing was both untimely (filed well beyond the 365-day limit after the direct-appeal transcript) and successive (Teitelbaum already filed a prior postconviction petition), and that statutory exceptions (R.C. 2953.23(A)) did not apply.
- The court affirmed the trial court judgment for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the untimely/successive claims and found the Carpenter and fraud/collusion exceptions inapplicable given the record and the absence of retroactivity or clear-and-convincing proof of actual prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Teitelbaum) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B)(4) relief is available based on Carpenter (CSLI) | Carpenter established a new Fourth Amendment rule; state used subpoena (not warrant) for CSLI, so conviction is invalid | Motion is in substance a postconviction petition and is untimely/successive; Carpenter is not retroactive and exceptions don't apply | Motion construed as postconviction petition; untimely/successive; R.C. 2953.23(A) exceptions fail; claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Carpenter claim was timely under Civ.R. 60(B) | Filed within one year of Carpenter decision, so timely under Civ.R. 60(B) | Even under Civ.R. 60(B), motion cannot avoid R.C. 2953.21 scheme; prior petition and statutory deadlines control | Court declines Civ.R. 60(B) route, applies postconviction deadlines; claim barred |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B)(3) fraud/collusion claim can void judgment and evade postconviction time limits | Alleged leak of privileged information and collusion by prosecutors/defense counsel rendered conviction void and exempt from timeliness | Claim attacks conviction and thus is a postconviction petition; it is untimely/successive and no statutory exception applies; no clear-and-convincing proof of prejudice | Claim treated as postconviction petition; untimely/successive; exceptions fail; jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether trial court erred by not stating reasons/findings when denying Civ.R. 60(B) motion | Trial court abused discretion by denying without findings, facts, or cited authority | Appellant failed to brief error; findings not required when dismissing untimely postconviction petitions | No reversible error; appellant bore burden to show error; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (U.S. 2018) (Supreme Court decision addressing Fourth Amendment protection for cell-site location information)
- State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2008) (Civ.R. 60(B) motion that attacks conviction may be recast as postconviction petition under R.C. 2953.21)
- State v. Apanovitch, 155 Ohio St.3d 358 (Ohio 2018) (statutory limits on successive/untimely postconviction petitions and jurisdictional bar under R.C. 2953.23)
- Ali v. State, 104 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2004) (test for retroactivity of new judicial rulings to cases that were final)