State v. Williams, 2013 Ohio 2989

In 2010, Williams pled guilty to three counts of aggravated drug trafficking and two counts of aggravated possession, receiving an eight-year sentence with no appeal taken.
In 2011, Williams moved to vacate sentence; court merged counts 2 and 4, and counts 3 and 5, but imposed an eight-year total.
This court vacated the 2011 judgment in Williams I for untimely filing and lack of jurisdiction to modify its judgment.
On September 5, 2012, Williams filed another motion to vacate/postconviction relief, arguing out-of-rule filing and a new federal right from Frye.
The trial court ruled September 13, 2012 that Williams I controls the issues raised, and denied relief.
The appellate court affirmed, holding that Williams’s first two assignments are barred by res judicata and the postconviction petition was properly denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does res judicata bar the first two assignments?	Williams argues trial issues were not previously adjudicated.	State contends issues were barred by res judicata since they could have been raised on direct appeal.	Yes; assignments barred by res judicata.
Was the petition for postconviction relief properly denied as out of rule and failing statute criteria?	Williams contends he should be permitted to file out of rule under RC 2953.23(A)(1) and Frye created a retroactive right.	State argues petition failed to satisfy RC 2953.23(A)(1)/(A)(2) and Frye does not create a new retroactive right here.	Yes; petition properly denied; no merit to the claims.

State v. Williams, 2012-Ohio-3401 (4th Dist., Ohio) (vacated judgment; timeliness and lack of jurisdiction in postconviction relief)
State v. Lofton, 2013-Ohio-1121 (4th Dist., Ohio) (res judicata bars successive postconviction claims)
State v. Beach, 2012-Ohio-1630 (4th Dist., Ohio) (res judicata and postconviction review standards)
State v. Evans, 2010-Ohio-5838 (4th Dist., Ohio) (postconviction relief standards; timing considerations)