State v. Withrow
2017 Ohio 8195
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Timothy Withrow pled guilty in 2015 to two counts of aggravated robbery arising from a three-day string of armed robberies; third count and firearm specifications were dismissed as part of the plea.
- PSI and sentencing record showed Withrow had a relatively clean adult criminal record, a significant juvenile record, a history of opioid/heroin addiction, employment history, and expressed remorse.
- Trial court imposed two consecutive nine-year terms; this conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and appeals to the Ohio Supreme Court were declined.
- Seventeen months after the appellate transcript was filed, Withrow filed an untimely petition for postconviction relief alleging (1) the State failed to disclose exculpatory or impeachment information about a store clerk and (2) the trial court improperly relied on his juvenile record in imposing consecutive sentences; he later amended to allege ineffective assistance of counsel regarding plea advice.
- The trial court summarily denied the petition without a hearing; the court of appeals affirmed, concluding the petition was untimely, lacked evidentiary support for constitutional claims, and that sentencing arguments were barred by res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Withrow) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of petition | R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) requires filing within 365 days; petition was untimely | Petition did not invoke or prove any statutory exception to the 365-day rule | Court: Petition untimely; no exceptions shown, so dismissal was proper |
| Brady/impeachment disclosure | State: No evidence the prosecution withheld material information | Withrow: Clerk fabricated part of her story and State failed to disclose that discrepancy, which would have impacted plea/sentence | Court: Withrow presented no evidentiary showing that the State withheld the information or that he was unaware of it when pleading; no basis for a hearing |
| Ineffective assistance / plea advice | State: Amended claim unsupported by evidentiary documents | Withrow: Counsel misrepresented sentence exposure, coercing plea (alleged) | Court: Amended claim contained only conclusory assertions and no supporting evidence; did not meet threshold for a hearing |
| Sentencing reliance on juvenile record / res judicata | State: Sentencing issues were raised and decided on direct appeal | Withrow: Trial court over-weighted juvenile record when imposing consecutive terms | Court: Sentencing claim was addressed on direct appeal and is barred by res judicata; cannot be relitigated in postconviction petition |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 (1980) (petitioner must submit evidentiary documents with sufficient facts to demonstrate a constitutional deprivation warranting a hearing)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (postconviction relief is a civil collateral attack distinct from direct appeal)
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (res judicata bars relitigation of issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)