State v. Williamson
2016 Ohio 7053
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2001 Williamson was convicted by jury of 12 counts of rape and in 2002 was sentenced to twelve consecutive life terms, postrelease control, fines, and costs.
- Williamson pursued multiple postconviction and sentencing challenges over more than a decade, including appeals and motions attacking evidentiary rulings, counsel effectiveness, and the postrelease-control advisement; some issues were previously litigated and rejected.
- After appellate rulings found sentencing entries defective for postrelease-control advisement, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry and later conducted a limited resentencing on postrelease-control, producing further appeals and remands.
- On November 16, 2015 Williamson filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief (and moved for appointed counsel) asserting twelve claims tied to the November 6, 2014 resentencing and various constitutional defects, including judicial vindictiveness and ineffective assistance of resentencing counsel.
- The trial court summarily denied the petition as successive/untimely and the denial was appealed. Williamson argued the court failed to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, that judicial vindictiveness required de novo review or dismissal, and that counsel should have been appointed.
- The appeals court affirmed: it held the petition was successive/untimely under R.C. 2953.21/2953.23, no findings were required for such petitions, alleged judicial bias must be raised via R.C. 2701.03, and there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in postconviction proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Williamson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying the postconviction petition | Trial court must issue findings and conclusions when denying his petition | Court need not issue findings on successive/untimely petitions under R.C. 2953.23 | Court: No error — findings not required for successive/untimely petitions |
| Whether petition was timely or a successive petition restarting limitations after resentencing | Petition filed within 365 days of resentencing transcript; thus timely | Petition attacks underlying conviction and repeats earlier claims; time runs from original appeal and petition is successive/untimely | Court: Petition is successive/untimely; resentencing did not restart filing clock |
| Whether alleged judicial vindictiveness and failure to issue findings justify de novo review or dismissal with prejudice | Trial judge’s history of comments and resentencings shows vindictiveness warranting equitable relief | Alleged bias must be pursued via statutory disqualification procedure; appellate court cannot void judgment for bias | Court: Claims of bias not properly raised here; no authority to void judgment on that basis |
| Whether petitioner had right to appointed counsel for postconviction relief | Williamson requested appointed counsel for his petition | No constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in postconviction (civil) proceedings | Court: Denial of appointment proper; no right to counsel in postconviction proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (describing petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21)
- State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (characterizing postconviction relief as a collateral civil attack)
- State ex rel. George v. Burnside, 118 Ohio St.3d 406 (trial courts not required to issue findings on successive/untimely postconviction petitions)
- State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303 (distinguishing R.C. 2953.21 and 2953.23; no findings required on successive petitions)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (postconviction rights are statutory, not constitutional)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in postconviction proceedings)