{¶ 3} On April 25, 2007, Appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the State's prosecuting attorney violated his constitutional rights by purposefully excluding African Americans from the jury. Appellant also argued the Indictment was unconstitutional. Appellant did not submit any affidavits or documentary evidence in support of his petition. Via Judgment Entry filed November 16, 2007, the trial court dismissed Appellant's petition for post-conviction relief, finding Appellant's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the petition was untimely filed.
{¶ 4} It is from this judgment entry Appellant appeals, raising as his sole assignment of error:
{¶ 5} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND THEREBY DEPRIVED THE APPELLANT RANDY LEWIS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY *3
THE
{¶ 7} In reviewing a trial court's denial of appellant's petition for post-conviction relief, absent a showing of abuse of discretion, we will not overrule the trial court's finding if it is supported by competent and credible evidence. State v. Delgado (May 14, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 72288, at 3, citing State v. Mitchell (1988),
{¶ 8} A petition for post-conviction relief is a means to reach constitutional issues which would otherwise be impossible to reach because the evidence supporting those issues is not contained in the record of the petitioner's criminal conviction. State v. Murphy (Dec. 26, 2000), Franklin App. No. 00AP-233. Although designed to address claimed constitutional violations, the post-conviction relief process is a civil collateral attack on a criminal judgment, not an appeal of that judgment. State v. Calhoun (1999), *4
{¶ 9} In the instant action, the trial court found Appellant's post-conviction relief was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We agree. The doctrine of res judicata bars a convicted defendant from raising any defense or lack of due process which had been raised or could have been raised at trial, or on direct appeal from the judgment of conviction. State v. Perry (1967),
{¶ 10} The trial court also found Appellant's petition was untimely filed pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 11} "(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
{¶ 12} "(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."
{¶ 13} The trial court found neither ground applied to the action before it; therefore, it could not entertain the petition as it had not been filed within the statutorily prescribed time. We find Appellant has failed to establish either ground and the trial court correctly found his petition to be untimely.
{¶ 14} Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court did not err in dismissing Appellant's petition.
{¶ 15} Appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 16} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
*6Hoffman, P.J., Farmer, J. and Delaney, J. concur.