State v. HairstonState v. Hairston
Rendered on September 5, 2013
Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, for appellee.
Jovaugny R. Hairston, pro se.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
KLATT, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Jovaugny R. Hairston, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} In 2005, a grand jury indicted appellant with single counts of aggravated robbery, robbery, aggravated burglary, burglary, kidnapping, theft and having a weapon while under disability, as well as multiple counts of receiving stolen property. In August 2006, appellant entered a guilty plea to counts of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, kidnapping (all which also contained firearm specifications), having a weapon
{¶ 3} In January 2009, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to
{¶ 4} Undeterred, appellant filed another petition for postconviction relief on January 31, 2013. This petition again claimed that his guilty plea was not made knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily due to his trial counsel‘s ineffective assistance. He also claimed that his trial counsel forged his signature on his plea form. Appellant later amended his petition to include a claim that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied appellant‘s petition for a number of reasons, including that the petition was untimely and that his claims were barred by res judicata. The trial court also rejected appellant‘s request to withdraw his guilty plea, concluding that he failed to demonstrate a manifest injustice to support withdrawal.
II. The Appeal
{¶ 5} Appellant appeals the trial court‘s decision and assigns the following errors:
[1.] Trial court erred using the application of res judicata to appellant‘s allegations.
[2.] Trial court erred applying “the law of the case” doctrine.
[3.] Appellant‘s guilty plea was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel, and induced under false pretenses making the plea void.
[4.] Trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence appellant without a jury.
[5.] Trial court abused its discretion denying appellant‘s Motion to withdraw guilty plea as the record clearly corroborates appellant‘s assertions of manifest injustice.
[6.] The time constraints of
R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) does not govern convictions obtained in violation of Ohio‘s and UnitedStates Constitution thus trial court erred by barring post-conviction petition as untimely pursuant to R.C. 2953.21 .
A. Appellant‘s Second Petition for Postconviction Relief
{¶ 6} We first address appellant‘s sixth assignment of error, in which he argues that the trial court erred by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his second petition for postconviction relief because it was untimely. We disagree. Although he claims that the time constraints found in
{¶ 7} Under the exception set forth in
(a) Either the petitioner shows that the petitioner was unavoidably prevented from discovery of the facts upon which the petitioner must rely to present the claim for relief, or, subsequent to the period prescribed in division (A)(2) of section 2953.21 of the Revised Code or to the filing of an earlier petition, the United States Supreme Court recognized a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to persons in the petitioner‘s situation, and the petition asserts a claim based on that right.
(b) The petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense of which the petitioner was convicted or, if the claim challenges a sentence of death that, but for constitutional error at the sentencing hearing, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner eligible for the death sentence.
{¶ 9}
{¶ 10} Because appellant failed to establish the applicability of an exception that would allow the trial court to consider his second petition, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition for postconviction relief. State v. Yusuf, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-751, 2009-Ohio-1328, ¶ 9. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying appellant‘s second petition, although technically, the petition should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Hamilton at ¶ 9. We overrule appellant‘s sixth assignment of error.
B. Appellant‘s Request to Withdraw his Guilty Plea
{¶ 11} In his fifth assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing. We must consider this assignment of error because motions to withdraw a guilty plea filed pursuant to
{¶ 12}
{¶ 13} A motion made pursuant to
{¶ 15} For all these reasons, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding, without a hearing, that appellant failed to demonstrate a manifest injustice to warrant the withdrawal of a guilty plea. We overrule appellant‘s fifth assignment of error.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 16} We overrule appellant‘s fifth and sixth assignments of error. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider appellant‘s second petition, appellant‘s other assignments of error, which address the merits of his petition, are moot. State v. Hatfield, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-784, 2008-Ohio-1377, ¶ 9. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
BROWN and T. BRYANT, JJ., concur.
T. BRYANT, J., retired, of the Third Appellate District, assigned to active duty under authority of Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 6(C).