State v. Wilson
2017 Ohio 8498
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Lawrence E. Wilson was convicted in 1997 of rape of a person under thirteen and sentenced; his direct appeal was affirmed.
- Over many years Wilson filed numerous post-conviction and extraordinary-relief actions in state and federal courts, all unsuccessful.
- In December 2016 Wilson moved to vacate judgment and sentence and requested grand-jury transcripts, asserting numerous defects (excessive/improper sentence, nunc pro tunc amendment adding two years, Crim.R. 43(A) violation, defective indictment, no lesser-included instruction, victim recantation, invalid waiver of counsel/ineffective assistance, denied allocution).
- Wilson also sought grand-jury transcripts claiming the indictment failed to identify the offense and that the victim lied to the grand jury.
- The trial court denied the motion and transcript request as barred by res judicata; Wilson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Wilson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-conviction motion and related claims are barred by res judicata / law of the case | Prior appeals and orders resolved these claims; subsequent collateral attack is barred | The trial errors (nunc pro tunc, presence at sentencing, counsel waiver, allocution, indictment defects) render the judgment void | Court: Claims previously raised and rejected are barred by res judicata and law of the case; overruled Wilson’s assignments on that basis |
| Whether amending the termination entry nunc pro tunc without Wilson present violated Crim.R. 43(A) | No relief; issue was already litigated and is res judicata | Nunc pro tunc amendment added two years and violated Crim.R. 43(A) because Wilson was not present | Court: Issue barred by prior rulings; no relief granted |
| Whether the indictment was defective and whether grand-jury transcripts must be produced | Indictment and prior proceedings resolved; transcripts not required; claim is repetitive | Indictment failed to name/identify the offense or degree; needs grand-jury testimony to show victim lied/recanted | Court: Request for transcripts denied; indictment claim barred by res judicata |
| Whether Wilson’s sentence is excessive / cruel and unusual | Sentence falls within statutory range and is consistent with precedent; not Eighth Amendment violation | Sentence (9–25 years) is excessive for alleged conduct and disproportionate compared to others | Court: Sentence within statutory limits and consistent with case law; claim without merit and barred by res judicata |
Key Cases Cited
- Norwood v. McDonald, 142 Ohio St. 299 (establishing res judicata rule for matters decided in prior actions)
- Steffen v. State, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (explaining post-conviction relief is collateral and limited to statutory rights)
- Gondor v. State, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (same; characterizing post-conviction proceedings as collateral attack)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (describing law-of-the-case doctrine)
- McDougle v. Maxwell, 1 Ohio St.2d 68 (sentences within statutory range do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment)