State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone Martin, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17AP-6
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
June 30, 2017
2017-Ohio-5657
KLATT, J.
(C.P.C. No. 95CR-183) (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on June 30, 2017
On brief: Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Valerie Swanson, for appellee.
On brief: Tyrone Martin, pro se.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
KLATT, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Tyrone Martin, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his petition for postconviction relief. For the following reasons, we affirm that judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} In 1995, a Franklin County Grand Jury indicted appellant for three counts of aggravated murder as well as counts of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery. After initially entering a not guilty plea to the charges, appellant withdrew that plea and entered guilty pleas to one count of aggravated murder and counts of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery. The parties agreed to a sentence of life imprisonment with
{¶ 3} Almost 15 years later, in 2012, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, based mainly on the grounds that a single judge, as opposed to a three-judge panel, accepted his pleas. This court affirmed the trial court‘s denial of that motion. State v. Martin, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-16, 2013-Ohio-1810.2
{¶ 4} Subsequently, in 2015, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to
II. Appellant‘s Appeal
{¶ 5} Appellant appeals and assigns the following errors:
[1.] The trial court erred in not following the rule of law emulating from Gover [sic] since the appellant‘s situation herein meets or exceeds Gover‘s [sic] requirements. This failure by the trial court violates this appellant‘s constitutional rights under the 5th and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the equivalent Articles and Sections of the Ohio Constitution.
[2.] The trial court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing on this petition as the rule of law in Gover [sic], and federal
law in Schriro [sic] and other U.S. Supreme Court cases, requires that a hearing be held and the failure of the trial court to hold a hearing in this case violated this appellant‘s constitutional rights under the 5th and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the equivalent Articles and Sections of the Ohio Constitution.
{¶ 6} Before addressing these assignments of error, we note that they do not address the trial court‘s conclusion that his petition was untimely. This conclusion is dispositive of appellant‘s appeal.
{¶ 7}
A petition under division (A)(1) of this section shall be filed no later than one hundred eighty days after the date on which the trial transcript is filed in the court of appeals in the direct appeal of the judgment of conviction or adjudication or, if the direct appeal involves a sentence of death, the date on which the trial transcript is filed in the supreme court. If no appeal is taken, * * * the petition shall be filed no later than one hundred eighty days after the expiration of the time for filing the appeal.
{¶ 8} In the present case, appellant‘s statutory deadline for filing a petition for postconviction relief was August 30, 1996, 180 days after the expiration of his time to file a direct appeal. State v. Martin, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-58, 2014-Ohio-3698, ¶ 8 (rejecting appellant‘s previous petition for postconviction relief asserting different grounds). Appellant did not file this petition until November 30, 2015, many years after that deadline passed. Therefore, appellant‘s petition was untimely. A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an untimely petition for postconviction relief unless the defendant demonstrates that one of the exceptions in
{¶ 9} Because appellant failed to establish the applicability of an exception that would allow the trial court to consider his untimely petition, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain his petition for postconviction relief. State v. Elkins, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-6, 2010-Ohio-4605, ¶ 16; State v. Mangus, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1105, 2009-Ohio-6563, ¶ 13. For the same reason, the trial court‘s decision to dismiss the petition
III. Conclusion
{¶ 10} The trial court did not err by dismissing appellant‘s untimely petition for postconviction relief. That conclusion renders moot appellant‘s assignments of error, which addresses the merits of his petition. Elkins at ¶ 17; 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 HORTON, JJ., concur.