STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEREMIAH D. MORTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 110946
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
July 7, 2022
2022-Ohio-2358
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-19-636658-A
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 7, 2022
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Tasha L. Forchione, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Jonathan Sidney, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Jeremiah Morton appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief. He contends that the trial court erred in denying
Procedural History and Factual Background
{¶ 2} In 2019, following a jury trial, Morton was convicted of four counts of rape, one count of kidnapping with a sexual motivation specification and one count of aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Morton appealed his convictions, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel because trial counsel (1) failed to object to various alleged acts of prosecutorial misconduct, attempts to inflame the jury and misstatements of law and facts during closing argument and (2) failed to properly cross-examine the state‘s witnesses. He also argued that the cumulative effect of the errors at trial deprived him of a fair trial. This court affirmed his convictions. State v. Morton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109200, 2021-Ohio-581, appeal not accepted, 164 Ohio St.3d 1403, 2021-Ohio-2742, 172 N.E.3d 169. Although we recognize that Morton‘s convictions were affirmed, the petition for postconviction relief is a separate proceeding that needs to be addressed separately.
{¶ 3} On December 23, 2020, while his direct appeal was pending, Morton electronically filed a petition for postconviction relief in which he argued that he was denied “his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process” and the effective assistance of trial counsel because, although his trial counsel repeatedly referenced the body camera footage during the trial, trial counsel failed to show that body camera footage to the jury. Morton claimed that the body camera footage would
{¶ 4} The petition was captioned for the criminal case in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, i.e., Cuyahoga C.P. Case No. CR-19-636658-A (the “criminal case” or “CR-19-636658-A“) and was submitted for electronic filing (“e-filing“), accepted for filing but was docketed under the case number for the pending appeal in this court — Appeal No. 109200, not the case number reflected in the caption. The state received a service copy on petition on December 23, 2020, through the court‘s e-filing system.1
{¶ 5} On December 26, 2020, Morton filed a “request for leave to file petition for postconviction relief” with the trial court, asserting that when filing the petition for postconviction relief using the court‘s e-filing system, “[t]he incorrect case number was filed [sic] and the [p]etition was filed under the [a]ppellate case number rather than the criminal case” and “was not received on the correct docket.” Morton indicated that he had been “notified by the Clerk of Courts” of the error2 and was “now requesting leave to file the petition on the correct docket.”
{¶ 7} A week later, the state filed a “motion for leave to file instanter state‘s motion to dismiss petition for postconviction relief” along with proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. The state argued that Morton‘s petition should be dismissed without a hearing because it was untimely under
{¶ 8} On October 1, 2021, the trial court summarily “denied” Morton‘s petition for postconviction relief.
{¶ 9} Morton appealed, raising the following sole assignment of error for review:
The trial court erred in dismissing Mr. Morton‘s petition for post-conviction relief without filing any findings of fact or conclusions of law with respect to the dismissal.
{¶ 10} In his sole assignment of error, Morton argues that the trial court erred in denying his “timely” petition for postconviction relief without “mak[ing] and fil[ing] findings of fact and conclusions of law” explaining why it denied the petition, as required by
{¶ 11} Former
Any person who has been convicted of a criminal offense or adjudicated a delinquent child and who claims that there was such a denial or infringement of the person‘s rights as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States * * * may file a petition in the court that imposed sentence, stating the grounds for relief relied upon, and asking the court to vacate or set aside the judgment or sentence or to grant other appropriate relief. The petitioner may file a supporting affidavit and other documentary evidence in support of the claim for relief.
{¶ 12} Where, as here, a conviction is appealed, a petition for postconviction relief must be filed within 365 days after the trial transcript is filed with the appellate court in the direct appeal unless an exception applies. Former
Except as otherwise provided in
section 2953.23 of the Revised Code , a petition under division (A)(1) of this section shall be filed no later than three hundred sixty-five 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 * * * [.]
{¶ 13}
{¶ 14} The timeliness requirement of
{¶ 16} In this case, the transcript was filed in Morton‘s direct appeal on December 24, 2019. The filing of Morton‘s petition for postconviction relief was docketed on December 23, 2020 in the appeal, Appeal No. 109200, and on December 26, 2020 in the criminal case, CR-19-636658-A. Actions undertaken unilaterally by the clerk of court.
{¶ 17} Morton argues that his petition was timely filed because it was filed on December 23, 2020, 365 days after the transcript was filed in his direct appeal,4 and that the trial court was, therefore, required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law under
{¶ 19} Neither party has cited any case law addressing the specific situation presented in this case, i.e., where a petition for postconviction relief was filed 365 days after the transcript was filed in the direct appeal but was docketed under the wrong case number in the wrong court.
{¶ 20} Following a thorough review of the record, we find that, under the unique facts and circumstances of this case, Morton‘s petition for postconviction relief was timely filed and that the trial court, therefore, had jurisdiction to consider his petition.
{¶ 21} As a general matter, we note that courts have held (in the context of rejecting the prison mailbox rule) that “for purposes of
{¶ 23} As Justice Donnelly wrote, in his concurring in judgment only opinion in State ex rel. Penland v. Dinkelacker 162 Ohio St.3d 59, 2020-Ohio-3774, 164 N.E.3d 336, ¶ 34, as to postconviction petitions that had been lost and were the
{¶ 24} The trial court, therefore, erred in denying Morton‘s petition for postconviction relief without issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law. See
{¶ 25} Judgment reversed and case remanded for further proceedings.
It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee the costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCURS;
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J., DISSENTS (WITH SEPARATE OPINION)
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J., DISSENTING:
{¶ 26} I respectfully dissent. Morton contends that the “timeliness requirement” under former
{¶ 27} And even if we discarded our general rule and considered the new argument presented in the reply brief, preventing the state from presenting a response to the newly formed argument in violation of State v. Tate, 140 Ohio St.3d 442, 2014-Ohio-3667, 19 N.E.3d 888, ¶ 21, Morton‘s argument regarding the lack of specification as to the proper venue is misplaced.
{¶ 28} If the petition for postconviction relief is not timely filed in the court that imposed sentence, that court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition or to grant additional time to file the petition. See Apanovitch. On this point alone, the trial court did not err.
{¶ 29} Instead of adhering to the unambiguous statutory language and the arguments presented for our review, the majority carves an exception to the jurisdictional prohibition, claiming that filing the petition in the wrong case is not fatal. There is no evidence, much less any argument from Morton, that the clerk of courts mis-docketed the petition. Instead, Morton concedes that the incorrect case number was used to electronically file (“E-file“) the petition, although the document was captioned correctly. In other words, the petition was correctly docketed under the wrong case number, a case number provided by Morton to the clerk of courts. According to Morton in his motion for leave to file the belated petition, “On December 23, 2020, Petitioner filed his Petition for Post Conviction Relief through the electronic e-filing system. The incorrect case number was filed and the Petition was filed under the Appellate case rather than the criminal case.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 30} Morton did not claim that the clerk of courts incorrectly docketed his petition in the appellate case number, but instead conceded that he filed the petition in the appellate case number in error and that he “was notified by the Clerk of Courts” of the need to file the petition on the correct docket. According to the time
{¶ 31} Contrary to the majority‘s assertion otherwise, neither of the Local Rules pertaining to E-filing includes a requirement to immediately notify counsel of the filing mistake on a document filed after hours on the brink of the jurisdictional deadline. There is nothing the clerk of courts could have done to save the filing deadline on Morton‘s behalf, and more importantly, Morton conceded that the clerk of courts in fact notified him of the discrepancy, which could only have occurred the day following the erroneous filing. In reviewing the calendar for December 2020, the filing deadline on the 23d was a Wednesday, with the following Thursday being the only day the clerk of courts was open during regular business hours given the holiday and upcoming weekend. Morton filed his petition with the trial court on the
{¶ 32} Even if we discarded all limits to our judicial review and presumed that there was a technical issue with the general division‘s E-file system that caused the document to be docketed in the wrong case number though initiated in the correct one, by rule those failures, “whether the fault of the system or otherwise,” cannot extend jurisdictional deadlines. Loc.R. 39.0(H)(3)(a). All parties using the court‘s E-file system are aware of this limitation.
{¶ 33} It is undisputed that the petition was not timely filed “with the court that imposed sentence.”
{¶ 34} Further, even if I were inclined to tread new ground by creating an exception contrary to the unambiguous jurisdictional requirement under
{¶ 35} There is no need to upend unambiguous jurisdictional limitations based on analysis not subjected to the crucible of advocacy and in a case that has not presented a basis to survive a summary disposition. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.