State v. Vinson, 2013 Ohio 5826

Vinson was convicted in 2006 of felonious murder with a firearm and carrying a concealed weapon; sentenced to a lengthy term.
The conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Eleventh District Court of Appeals.
Vinson previously filed a first postconviction relief petition claiming trial counsel failed to call two witnesses; petition denied and affirmed on appeal.
In October 2012, Vinson filed a second postconviction relief petition premised on Lafler v. Cooper asserting a new right for plea-offer context.
The State argued Lafler/Frye did not create a new constitutional right, and the petition should be dismissed.
The appellate court held Lafler/Frye do not establish a new rule of constitutional law and thus the trial court lacked authority to entertain the second petition; judgment affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lafler/Frye create a new constitutional right	Vinson: Lafler creates new right	State: no new right; applies existing Strickland	Lafler/Frye do not create a new rule
Whether the court could entertain a second petition under R.C. 2953.23	Vinson entitled to hearing on petition	No authority to entertain; untimely	Trial court lacked authority; petition appropriately dismissed

Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (U.S. 2012) (applies Strickland to rejected plea offers; not a new rule)
Frye v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (U.S. 2012) (confirms application of Strickland to plea negotiations)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (U.S. 1985) (prejudice standard in plea-bargaining contexts)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (U.S. 1984) (establishes ineffective-assistance standard)
In re Perez, 682 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 2012) (11th Cir. 2012) (Eleventh Circuit on Lafler/Frye limitations)
Buenrostro v. United States, 697 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2012) (9th Cir. 2012) (second/successive §2255 motions not based on Lafler/Frye)