State v. Workman, 2019 Ohio 5379

Timothy Workman was convicted in 2014 of multiple counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material and one count of tampering with evidence and sentenced to an aggregate 40-year term.
His direct appeal was affirmed by this Court in 2015.
Workman filed multiple postconviction petitions and motions for new trial and for a Franks hearing; the trial court denied/dismissed them and this Court repeatedly affirmed those dismissals on appeal.
On August 12, 2019 Workman filed a successive petition for postconviction relief attaching one page of an incident report; he sought an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court dismissed the successive, untimely petition for lack of jurisdiction (finding R.C. 2953.23(A) exceptions not met); the State argued the incident report had been previously disclosed (Jan 6, 2014) and the claim was barred by res judicata.
The appellate court affirmed, holding Workman failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts or otherwise meet the statutory exception, and that res judicata barred the claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing Workman’s successive, untimely postconviction petition (jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23(A))	State: The incident report was disclosed in initial discovery (Jan 6, 2014); the matter was available earlier and prior petitions raised the same issues, so res judicata bars relief	Workman: He did not have the incident report at trial and was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts; therefore the statutory exception applies and the court has jurisdiction	Affirmed. Petitioner failed to show an exception under R.C. 2953.23(A); the document had been available and/or was already used in a prior petition, so res judicata bars the claim
Whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on the successive petition	State: No substantive grounds for relief; untimely/successive petition and jurisdictional bars mean no hearing required	Workman: The new evidence (incident report page) warrants an evidentiary hearing to adjudicate his claims	Affirmed. No evidentiary hearing required because petition lacked substantive grounds and was barred; trial court did not abuse its discretion

State v. Keith, 891 N.E.2d 1191 (defines scope of R.C. 2953.21 postconviction relief)
State v. Cunningham, 65 N.E.3d 307 (clarifies that trial court lacks jurisdiction over untimely/successive petitions absent R.C. 2953.23(A) exception)
State v. McKelton, 55 N.E.3d 26 (documents available at time of earlier petition bar successive claims by res judicata)
State v. Calhoun, 714 N.E.2d 905 (Ohio Supreme Court rule that evidentiary hearing is not automatic; court must find substantive grounds)
Coulson v. Coulson, 448 N.E.2d 809 (res judicata precludes relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised earlier)