State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ozie M. Brime, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19AP-446 (C.P.C. No. 17CR-1077)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
October 24, 2019
2019-Ohio-4343
BRUNNER, J.
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
On brief: Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Barbara A. Farnbacher, for appellee.
On brief: Ozie M. Brime, pro se.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
D E C I S I O N
BRUNNER, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Ozie M. Brime, appeals from a decision оf the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, issued on June 11, 2019, denying his postconviction relief petition without a hearing. Even ignoring potential procedural defects, because Brime did not show he provided the required notice to trigger the application of
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On February 22, 2017, Brime was indicted for one count of felonious assault and one count of having a weapon under disability, bоth with associated firearm specifications. (Feb. 22, 2017 Indictment.) The indictment also contained a repeat violent offender specification. Id. After initially pleading “not guilty” approximately one year
{¶ 3} On April 11, 2018, Brime filed a postconviction petition alleging that the State had not tried him within the 180-day time limit provided by
{¶ 4} The trial court denied Brime‘s petition without a hearing. (June 11, 2019 Entry.) In relevant part, the trial court reasoned that Brime hаd not introduced any evidence providing the triggering notice required by the statute. Id. at 1-2. In addition, the trial court noted that postconviction pеtitions are collateral attacks designed to permit a convicted person to raise constitutional issues but that Brime had not attempted to do this. Id. at 2-3.
{¶ 5} Brime now appeals.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 6} Brime raises a single assignment of error for review:
The trial court abused its discretion in denying post-conviction relief.
III. DISCUSSION
{¶ 7} The postconviction relief process is a collateral civil attack on a criminal judgment. State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399, 410 (1994). “It is a means to reach constitutional issues which would otherwise be impossible to reach becausе the evidence supporting those issues is not contained” in the trial court record. State v. Murphy, 10th Dist. No. 00AP-233, 2000 WL 1877526, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 6129, *5 (Dec. 26, 2000); see also, e.g., State v. Carter, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-4, 2013-Ohio-4058, ¶ 15. As potentially relevant to this case, Brime‘s petition for postconviction relief was required to establish “that there was such a denial or infringement of [his] rights as to render the judgment void
{¶ 8} A defendant is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a рostconviction relief petition. State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107, 110 (1980).
{¶ 9} We review Brime‘s assignment of error using a mixed standard of review. State v. Barber, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-172, 2017-Ohio-9257, ¶ 17, 20; cf. State v. Kane, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-781, 2017-Ohio-7838, ¶ 9. We have recognized that, “in reviewing a petition for postcоnviction relief filed pursuant to
{¶ 10} Brime did not in his petition allege a violation of any specific constitutiоnal right. Rather, he alleged that the trial court acted without jurisdiction because the State failed to comply with
When a person has entеred upon a term of imprisonment in a correctional institution of this state, and when during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in this state any untried indictment, information, or complaint against the prisoner, he shall be brought to trial within one hundred eighty days after he causes to be delivered to the prosecuting attorney and the appropriate court in which the matter is pending, written notice of the place of his imprisonment and a request for a final disрosition to be made of the matter, except that for good cause shown in open court, with the prisoner or his counsel present, the court may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance.
* * *
If the action is not brought to trial within the time provided, subject to continuance allowed pursuant to this section, no court any longer has jurisdiction thereof, the indictment, information, or complaint is void, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the action with prejudice.
(Emphasis added.) Even disregarding the potential procedural problems in raising an argument аbout compliance with
{¶ 11} The Supreme Court of Ohio has “h[e]ld that
{¶ 12} We overrule his sole assignment of error.
IV. CONCLUSION
{¶ 13} Even disregarding the potential procedural problems in raising an argument about compliance with
Judgment affirmed.
BROWN and BEATTY BLUNT, JJ., concur.