State v. ClayState v. Clay
Rendered on August 18, 2022
On brief: G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and Seth L. Gilbert, for appellee. Argued: Seth L. Gilbert.
On brief: Steven P. Billing, for appellant. Argued: Steven P. Billing.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
MENTEL, J.
{1} Defendant-appellant, Emory T. Clаy, appeals from a decision and entry denying his petition for postconviction relief.
{2} For the reasons that follow, we conclude the trial court should have dismissed appellant‘s petition for lack of jurisdiction.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{3} On May 09, 2016, аppellant was indicted on charges of participating in a criminal gang in violation of
{4} Appellant was found indigent, and a public defender was assigned to represent him in this case. Discovery was filed on June 10, 2016. Supplemental discоvery was filed on July 6 and 27, 2016.
{5} On December 16, 2016, appellant pleaded guilty to the stipulated lesser-included offense of Count One, engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of
{6} On June 7, 2020, appellant filed a postconviction petition for relief to vacate the conviction and grant a trial. Appellant arguеd his conviction should be vacated as his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant argued that he was not, until recently, provided a copy of discovery documents from his case and was unaware of how allegedly deficient his attorney was in his representation. Appellant included an affidavit with his petition. On June 22, 2020, appellee filed a combined memorandum in oppоsition and motion to dismiss. Appellee argued in its combined motion that appellant‘s petition should be dismissed as untimely under
{8} Appellant filed a timely appeal.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{9} Appellant assigns the following as trial court error:
[1] TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR WITH ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENIAL OF APPELLANT‘S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING.
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Appellant‘s Sole Assignment of Error
{10} In appellant‘s sole assignment of error, he argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his petition for postconviction relief without a hearing.
{11} A petition for postconviction relief is not a direct appeal but a collateral civil attack on the judgment. State v. Wade, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-456, 2021-Ohio-4090, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 281 (1999). Pursuant to
{12}
{13} We review a trial court‘s denial of a postconviction petition without a hearing under an abuse of discretion anаlysis. State v. Johnson, 10th Dist. No. 18AP-821, 2019-Ohio-2409, ¶ 6 (further citations omitted). A trial court‘s decision is upheld under an abuse of discretion analysis if the decision is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{14} As an initial matter, we must first determine if we have jurisdiction over this petition. ” ‘In general, a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed after the time limits of
{16} Regarding the limited statutory exceptions, appellant has failеd to demonstrate that any of the exceptions apply to the present case. Appellant does not offer any viable reason for the delay in filing his postconviction petition, and the record is devoid of any grounds for prohibiting him from filing within the statutory deadline. While appellant‘s petition states that he received a copy of the discovery in prison, he fails to explain how or when this discovery was received. Moreover, aрpellant has failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that but for the purported constitutional error in the case, a reasonable fact finder would have found him not guilty of the offenses of which he was сonvicted.
{17} Because appellant has failed to demonstrate that any of the
{18} We do note, however, that apрellant raised at oral argument, for the first time, that the trial court erred in failing to write findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In Stewart, we provided extensive support for position that a trial court should dismiss a petition for postconviction relief when it lacks jurisdiction rather than deny the petition on some other grounds. We wrote:
This court has previously advised trial courts should dismiss a petition for postconviction relief when jurisdiction is lacking, rather than denying the pеtition on some other grounds. See, e.g., State v. Banks, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-96, 2012-Ohio-3770, ¶ 11 (“the trial court did not err in denying appellant‘s petition, though technically the petition should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); State v. Mangus, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1105, 2009-Ohio-6563, ¶ 13 (affirming denial of postconviction petition as untimely filеd even though trial court should have dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction); State v. Russell, 10th Dist. No. 05AP-391, 2006-Ohio-383, ¶ 10 (although trial court did not err in denying the petition on the merits, it should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); State v. Elkins, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-6, 2010-Ohio-4605, ¶ 17 (the untimely postconviction petition should have bеen dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).
{19} While we conclude that even though the trial court should have dismissed appellant‘s petition for lack of jurisdiction rather than deny the рetition, we agree with the trial court‘s ultimate disposition of the case. Accordingly, appellant‘s assignment of error is overruled.
IV. CONCLUSION
{20} Based on the foregoing reasons, we overrule appellant‘s sole assignment of errоr. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is modified to reflect the dismissal of appellant‘s postconviction petition.
Judgment modified; postconviction petition dismissed.
BEATTY BLUNT and MCGRATH, JJ., concur.