State v. Willingham, 2017 Ohio 8345

Background

Dajuan Willingham was indicted in June 2014 on multiple counts including aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and felonious assault; he pleaded guilty to six aggravated robberies with two gun specifications and received an aggregate 30-year prison sentence in Feb. 2015.
Willingham directly appealed his conviction and sentence; this court affirmed in March 2016. He did not raise ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal.
In Oct. 2015 Willingham filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the trial court dismissed it and this court affirmed in Aug. 2016.
In Nov. 2016 Willingham filed another pro se motion titled “Motion to Correct Void Judgment,” again alleging counsel was ineffective (specifically for not investigating a plea offer). The trial court construed it as a successive postconviction petition and dismissed it as untimely on Jan. 27, 2017.
Willingham appealed that dismissal. The Sixth District affirmed, holding the petition was a successive, untimely postconviction filing that did not meet the exceptions of R.C. 2953.23 and was barred by res judicata.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the successive postconviction petition was timely / whether court had jurisdiction	Willingham argued counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate a plea offer and thus the judgment was void	State argued the petition was filed beyond the 180-day statutory period and was therefore untimely and jurisdictionally barred	Court held the petition was untimely/successive under R.C. 2953.21 and 2953.23; trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it
Whether an exception under R.C. 2953.23(A) applied to permit review	Willingham asserted facts supporting ineffective assistance that would justify review	State argued Willingham failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering facts or that a new retroactive right exists; no clear-and-convincing showing of likely innocence	Court held Willingham did not meet the statutory exceptions in R.C. 2953.23(A) and thus review was barred
Whether res judicata bars the successive ineffective-assistance claim	Willingham renewed his ineffective-assistance claim regarding plea-offer investigation	State argued the claim was previously raised or could have been raised and is therefore barred by res judicata	Court held res judicata barred relitigation of the ineffective-assistance claim because it was previously litigated or could have been raised earlier
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the petition	Willingham contended the dismissal was improper and his claim meritorious	State maintained dismissal was within court’s discretion given timeliness and res judicata defects	Court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed dismissal

Key Cases Cited

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion requires decision to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal)