State v. White
2017 Ohio 8750
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In October 2003 Marcus White shot his wife (who survived) and fatally shot his mother‑in‑law; he was indicted for aggravated murder and attempted murder with firearm specifications.
- In a May 2005 jury trial White was convicted of murder (lesser included) and felonious assault (lesser included); firearm specification found; sentenced to consecutive terms plus mandatory firearm term.
- White pursued direct appeals and post‑sentencing challenges; this court affirmed convictions and after remand affirmed resentencing.
- White filed multiple collateral challenges: an untimely postconviction petition in 2012 (denied) and a 2016 motion to vacate claiming the indictment did not charge murder and felonious assault and arguing jurisdictional/double jeopardy/due process defects.
- The trial court denied the 2016 motion as an untimely and successive petition under R.C. 2953.23 and as barred by res judicata; White appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (White) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain White's 2016 motion to vacate | The 2016 filing is an untimely postconviction petition and the court lacks jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23 | The indictment did not charge murder and felonious assault; convictions therefore void and court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction | Court held it lacked jurisdiction: petition was untimely and successive, so dismissal proper |
| Whether exceptions to the postconviction filing deadline apply | No showing of statutory exceptions; State argued exceptions not invoked | White did not (and could not) demonstrate he met exceptions in R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)/(2) | Court held White failed to show any statutory exception, so petition remains untimely |
| Whether res judicata bars White's claims | Res judicata precludes claims raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal or prior collateral petitions | Claimed jury instruction/indictment defects could be litigated now because they render judgment void | Court held res judicata bars the claim because White was represented and had opportunity to raise these issues earlier |
| Whether White's void‑judgment/double jeopardy/due process claims entitle him to relief despite procedural bars | State maintained procedural bars apply and merits need not be reached | White argued constitutional defects render judgment void and therefore immune from procedural bars | Court refused to reach merits, concluding procedural bars (untimeliness, successive petition, res judicata) preclude relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 1997) (postconviction relief framework)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised earlier)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata applies in postconviction proceedings)
- State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (Ohio 1994) (postconviction review is narrow; res judicata limits collateral claims)
- State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (Ohio 2006) (standard for reviewing postconviction petition determinations)