State v. Wolff
2012 Ohio 5575
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Wolff was convicted by jury of 16 counts of rape and 9 counts of gross sexual imposition involving his two minor step-daughters; sentences included multiple life terms and consecutive prison terms.
- On direct appeal, the appellate court affirmed five of the issues and found one mooted by merger, denying reopening of the direct appeal.
- Wolff filed a pro se petition in July 2010 for postconviction relief seeking vacation of sentence and alleging ineffective assistance and prosecutorial withholding of exculpatory evidence.
- The trial court granted the state's summary-judgment motion in November 2010 without explanation, and Wolff appealed.
- The court of appeals held that the petition was untimely under R.C. 2953.21/2953.23, and that lack of timely filing foreclosed merits; remaining assignments were mooted by the timeliness issue.
- The judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of postconviction petition | State: untimely under 180-day limit; no timely exception proven | Wolff: seeks tolling under 2953.23(A) due to unavoidably prevented discovery | Untimely; no proven exception; court lacked jurisdiction |
| Unavoidably prevented from discovering facts | State: exception not satisfied by facts | Wolff: discovery of new facts/ties to evidence dehors the record | Not proven; untimeliness stands |
| Evidence dehors the record and postconviction timing | State: CSB history treated as dehors the record; supports timely grant | Wolff: relied on dehors-the-record material | Evidence dehors the record does not excuse untimeliness; petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Effect of untimeliness on remaining claims | State: merits not reviewable if petition untimely | Wolff: some claims meritorious if timely | Remaining assignments moot; affirm judgment on jurisdictional grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. State, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (timeliness and jurisdiction in postconviction relief)
- State v. Beuke, 130 Ohio App.3d 633 (1998) (timing requirements for postconviction petitions; lack of knowledge not cause to bypass deadlines)
- State v. Herring, 7th Dist. No. 06 JE 8, 2007-Ohio-3174 (2007) (evidence dehors the record considerations in postconviction)