State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John A. Reed, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13AP-450
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
November 21, 2013
2013-Ohio-5145
SADLER, J.
(C.P.C. No. 07CR-10-7261); (ACCELERATED CALENDAR)
Rendered on November 21, 2013
Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Sheryl L. Prichard, for appellee.
John A. Reed, pro se.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
SADLER, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, John A. Reed, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for postconviction relief. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
{¶ 2} After a jury trial in 2008, appellant was found guilty of possession of crack cocaine, in violation of
{¶ 3} In July 2011, appellant filed a motion to vacate sentence, arguing his sentence was void because the statute authorizing an additional prison term for his major-drug-offender specification was severed by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856. After concluding appellant‘s arguments were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the claims were raised or could have been raised at sentencing or in a direct appeal, the trial court denied appellant‘s motion to vacate sentence. Appellant appealed to this court and argued that, because his sentence was void, review of the same was not precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. Finding that appellant failed to demonstrate any error, much less a “void” sentencing error, this court affirmed the trial court‘s judgment denying appellant‘s motion to vacate sentence in State v. Reed, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-792, 2012-Ohio-1612.
{¶ 4} On February 21, 2013, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, pursuant to
II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶ 5} This appeal followed, and appellant brings three assignments of error for our review:
I. The trial court erred when it found Appellant‘s post conviction relief petition untimely.
II. The trial court abused it‘s [sic] discretion when it barred review of Appellant‘s post conviction relief petition on the doctrine of res judicata.
III. The trial court abused it‘s [sic] discretion by not adjudicating Appellant‘s post conviction relief petition on the merits of it‘s [sic] claims, and in finding that claims wholly lacked merit.
A. First Assignment of Error
{¶ 6} In his first assignment of error, appellant challenges the trial court‘s determination that his postconviction petition was untimely.
{¶ 7} Pursuant to
{¶ 8} A trial court‘s decision to deny a postconviction petition without a hearing is reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard. State v. Boddie, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-811, 2013-Ohio-3925, ¶ 11, citing State v. Campbell, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-147, 2003-Ohio-6305, ¶ 14. An abuse of discretion entails a decision that is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶ 9} The instant postconviction petition is untimely and constitutes appellant‘s second request for postconviction relief. Therefore, appellant had to demonstrate that one of
{¶ 10} These cases do not recognize a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to persons in appellant‘s situation so as to justify the filing of an untimely or
{¶ 11} Because appellant has failed to establish the applicability of any exceptions allowing for filing an untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief, the trial court properly denied the same without a hearing as it lacked jurisdiction to review it. Accordingly, appellant‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
B. Remaining Assignments of Error
{¶ 12} Our disposition of appellant‘s first assignment of error renders his remaining assignments of error moot.
IV. CONCLUSION
{¶ 13} Appellant‘s first assignment of error is overruled, appellant‘s second and third assignments of error are rendered moot, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
KLATT, P.J., and BROWN, J., concur.