State v. AllenState v. Allen
Decided: April 22, 2016
* * * * *
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Ronald S. Allen, Jr., pro se.
* * * * *
SINGER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Ronald S. Allen Jr., appeals from the June 15, 2015 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his petition for postconviction relief. Appellant was convicted of murder by a jury and sentenced to an indefinite term
{¶ 2} For the past 19 years, appellant has filed numerous motions and petitions for postconviction relief, all of which have been dismissed on the grounds that they were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. State v. Allen, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-98-1433, 1999 WL 550230 (July 30, 1999); State v. Allen, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-11-1077, 2012-Ohio-3504; State v. Allen, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-14-1165, 2015-Ohio-1858, ¶ 7-8.
{¶ 3} The current appeal arises from appellant‘s May 21, 2015 petition to vacate his conviction pursuant to
{¶ 4} On appeal, appellant asserts the following assignments of error:
Whether the trial court erred, abused its discretion, and commits Plain Error when it granted the Plaintiff for the State of Ohio, Motion for Summary Judgment.
Assignment of Error No. II
Whether the trial court erred, abused his discretion, commits Plain Error and denied Appellant, Ronald S. Allen Jr., Due Process, without notice of the courts [sic] intention to Sua Sponte dismiss his motion pursuant to
Assignment of Error No. III
Whether the jury verdict form is in compliance with
Assignment of Error No. IV
Whether the trial court‘s judgment entry rendered on June 11, 2015 constitutes a final, appealable order under
{¶ 5} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing his petition. We disagree.
{¶ 6} The postconviction relief remedy under
{¶ 7}
{¶ 8} We review the trial court‘s decision as to whether the petitioner has established an exception to the time limit under an abuse of discretion standard. Unsworth at ¶ 16; State v. Rodriguez, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-14-075, 2015-Ohio-562,
{¶ 9} In this case, appellant‘s petition is clearly untimely unless one of the exceptions applies. Appellant‘s claim for relief is that his conviction was void because the jury verdict form was insufficient. Appellant asserts, without further explanation, that he was unavoidably prevented from discovery of this claim.
{¶ 10} We find this allegation does not fit the requirements of
{¶ 11} Appellant‘s claim should have been raised in his direct appeal because it was not based on evidence outside the record. Alternatively, even if the claim was based on evidence outside the record, it could have been raised in appellant‘s prior postconviction relief petitions. Having failed to timely assert his claim, it is now barred by statute,
{¶ 12} Therefore, we find appellant‘s first assignment of error not well-taken.
{¶ 13} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing his petition without giving him prior notice and an opportunity to respond.
{¶ 14} As stated above, the court was required to first determine if the court had jurisdiction to consider appellant‘s subsequent petition for postconviction relief. There is no requirement that the trial court give notice of its intent to do so or an opportunity for appellant to present additional argument or evidence. Appellant was given notice of appellee‘s filing of a motion for summary judgment/motion to dismiss. Therefore, we find appellant‘s second assignment of error not well-taken.
{¶ 15} In his third assignment of error, appellant argues that the jury verdict form is not in compliance with
{¶ 16} In his fourth assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court‘s judgment was not a final, appealable order because the court did not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court is not required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when it dismisses an untimely petition for postconviction relief.
{¶ 17} Having found that the trial court did not commit error prejudicial to appellant, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the court costs of this appeal pursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________ JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J. CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.