State v. Smith ( 2020 )

[Cite as State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-1370.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-190162
TRIAL NO. B-1505510
Respondent-Appellee, :
vs. : O P I N I O N.
WILLIAM ANTONIO SMITH, :
Petitioner-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed as Modified
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 8, 2020
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent-Appellee,
William Antonio Smith, pro se.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
MOCK, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Petitioner-appellant William Antonio Smith appeals the Hamilton
County Common Pleas Court’s judgment denying his petition under R.C. 2953.21 et
seq. for postconviction relief. Because the court had no jurisdiction to entertain
Smith’s late postconviction petition, we affirm the judgment as modified to dismiss
the petition.
{¶2} In 2017, Smith was convicted of having weapons while under a disability
and two counts of murder in connection with the deaths of his friends Alma Jean Owens
and MacArthur Jackson, Sr., during an altercation in Jackson’s apartment. Owens was 57
years old and 5’1’’ tall. Smith shot her three times: one shot shattered her right leg; a
close-range shot struck her on the right side of her jaw; and the fatal shot struck her under
her right eye. Jackson was 72 years old, 5’4” tall, and suffered from chronic lung disease,
hypertension, and arteriosclerosis. He sustained three gunshots to the head and multiple
cuts on his hands and head, including the fatal 6½-inch-long cut to his neck, found by the
coroner to have required up to a dozen strokes. Then-27-year-old Smith gave police
multiple conflicting accounts of his role in their deaths, then admitted killing them, but
claimed that he had acted in self-defense after Owens attacked him with a sharp object
and Jackson physically assaulted him.
{¶3} Evidence was also adduced at trial showing that Smith had sustained
substantial cuts to his hand, neck, face, and side. At Smith’s request, the trial court
instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of self-defense and on voluntary
manslaughter as an offense of inferior degree to murder. But the jury returned verdicts
finding Smith guilty of murder. And this court, in affirming those convictions on direct
appeal, overruled Smith’s challenges to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence to
support those verdicts. See State v. Smith, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-170028, 2018-
Ohio-2504, appeals not accepted, 154 Ohio St. 3d 1444, 2018-Ohio-4962, 113 N.E.3d
553 (affirming convictions, but remanding for consecutive-sentences findings). In
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
our assessment, substantial, credible evidence supported the jury’s verdicts that Smith had
purposely caused the victims’ deaths, and Smith failed to sustain his burden of proving
that he had acted in self-defense. Specifically, with respect to Smith’s self-defense
claim, we found no evidence that he had not been at fault in creating the violent
situation, had acted under an objectively reasonable belief that he had been in
danger of imminent death or great bodily harm, or had not violated any duty to
retreat or avoid the danger. Id. at ¶ 56-66.
The Postconviction Petition
{¶4} In 2018, Smith filed a postconviction petition seeking relief from his
convictions on the grounds that (1) his trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to
support his self-defense claim with witnesses and hospital records showing the
“defensive” nature of his injuries, and (2) he had been denied due process because he
was “not afforded the presentation of evidentiary documentation or witnesses to
refute [the state’s] evidence and witnesses.” He supported the petition with a report
generated by the University of Cincinnati Medical Center concerning a follow-up
surgical procedure required for the injuries to his hand. He also offered his own
affidavit attesting to his pretrial requests that trial counsel subpoena that report, a
physician, two character witnesses, and records generated by the emergency room at
Good Samaritan Hospital, where his injuries had first been treated. In two
subsequent motions, he unsuccessfully sought “leave to supplement” the petition
with “newly obtained evidence” in the form of the Good Samaritan Hospital
emergency-room records.
{¶5} Smith here appeals from the common pleas court’s judgment denying
his postconviction petition. On appeal, he presents three assignments of error.
Amendment Improperly Denied
{¶6} We address first the second assignment of error, challenging the
overruling of Smith’s motions for leave to supplement his postconviction petition
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
with the Good Samaritan Hospital emergency-room records. The challenge is well
taken.
{¶7} R.C. 2953.21(G)(2) affords a postconviction petitioner the right to
“amend[]” a postconviction petition “at any time before the [state’s] answer or [a
summary-judgment] motion is filed.” With his July 6 and 10, 2018 motions for leave
to supplement his postconviction petition, Smith sought to amend his petition to add
evidentiary material supporting his postconviction claims. Because the state did not
respond to the petition until July 25, 2018, when it filed its memorandum in
opposition to the petition, Smith had a right under R.C. 2953.21(G)(2) to amend his
petition. The effect of the common pleas court’s entry overruling Smith’s motions
was to deny him that right. We, therefore, hold that the court erred in overruling the
motions.
{¶8} This holding does not, however, compel reversal of the common pleas
court’s judgment denying Smith’s postconviction petition. The common pleas court
did not reach the merits of Smith’s late postconviction claims because it determined
that it had no jurisdiction to do so. Because we conclude, for the following reasons,
that those claims were subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, the denial of
Smith’s right to amend his petition with evidentiary material supportive of the claims
cannot be said to have been prejudicial. Accordingly, we overrule the second
assignment of error.
No Jurisdiction to Entertain the Petition
{¶9} Smith’s first and third assignments of error may fairly be read together
to challenge the denial of his postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing.
That challenge is untenable.
{¶10} No prison-mailbox rule. R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) required Smith to
file his postconviction petition within 365 days from the filing of the transcript of the
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
proceedings in his direct appeal. His petition was not filed with the clerk of courts
within the prescribed time.
{¶11} Smith asserts on appeal that he satisfied the time restrictions of R.C.
2953.21(A)(2) by timely delivering the petition to the prison mailroom. But a prison-
mailbox rule does not operate in this state. State ex rel. Tyler v. Alexander, 52 Ohio
St.3d 84, 555 N.E.2d 966 (1990) (overruling State v. Williamson, 10 Ohio St. 2d 195,
226 N.E.2d 735 (1967), declining to adopt the federal prison-mailbox rule of Houston
v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 101 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1988), and holding that
a notice of appeal is considered filed on the day it is filed with the clerk of courts).
Therefore, for purposes of R.C. 2953.21(A)(2), a postconviction petition is filed when
it is filed with the clerk of courts, not when it is placed in the prison mailing system.
State v. VanCleve, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-03-024, 2015-Ohio-230, ¶17, fn.
2; State v. Lester, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-07-23, 2007-Ohio-5627, ¶ 6-12; State v.
Friley, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP-15, 2006-Ohio-230, ¶ 9; State v. Williams, 157
Ohio App. 3d 374, 2004-Ohio-2857, 811 N.E.2d 561, ¶ 8-12 (8th Dist.); State v.
Lathan, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-00-1073, 2000 WL 1005206 (July 21, 2000); State v.
Springs, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 97 CA 68, 1999 WL 148369 (Mar. 11, 1999), fn. 1;
State v. Bowens, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 97-A-004, 1998 WL 553049 (June 26,
1998); State v. Coots, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 96CA0095, 1997 WL 803125 (Dec. 24,
1997); State v. Vroman, 4th Dist. Ross No. 96CA 2258, 1997 WL 193168 (Apr. 15,
1997); State v. Smith, 123 Ohio App. 3d 48, 50, 702 N.E.2d 1245 (2d Dist.1997)
(following Tyler to hold that a prison-mailbox rule does not operate to preclude the
dismissal of a postconviction petition on the ground that it was not timely filed).
Accordingly, Smith’s petition was not timely filed.
{¶12} No jurisdiction under postconviction statutes. Because the
petition was not timely filed, the postconviction statutes conferred upon the common
pleas court jurisdiction to entertain Smith’s late postconviction claims only upon
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
satisfaction of R.C. 2953.23. Smith was required to show either that he was
unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which his postconviction
claims depend or that his claims were predicated upon a new retrospectively
applicable right recognized by the United States Supreme Court since the time for
filing the claims had expired. And he was required to show “by clear and convincing
evidence that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would
have found [him] guilty of the offense[s] of which [he] was convicted * * *.” R.C.
2953.23(A)(1).
{¶13} Smith’s ineffective-counsel and due-process claims were not
predicated upon a new retrospectively applicable right recognized by the United
States Supreme Court since the time for filing those claims had expired. On appeal,
he argues that he was unavoidably prevented from timely filing his postconviction
petition, because his request for the Good Samaritan emergency-room records had
been delayed by the county public defender’s delay in notifying him that it was
declining his case. But his postconviction petition and its supporting evidentiary
material did not speak to, much less demonstrate, the matter of unavoidable
prevention. Nor does the record otherwise reflect efforts on his part or on his behalf
to secure the evidence upon which his ineffective-counsel and due-process claims
depended. Because he failed to satisfy the R.C. 2953.23 jurisdictional requirements
for entertaining a late postconviction claim, the postconviction statutes did not
confer upon the common pleas court jurisdiction to entertain Smith’s petition. See
R.C. 2953.23(A)(1).
{¶14} Not void. Finally, a court always has jurisdiction to correct a void
judgment. State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St. 3d 353, 2006-Ohio-5795, 856
N.E.2d 263, ¶ 18-19. But neither his due-process claim nor his ineffective-counsel
claim, even if demonstrated, would have rendered his convictions void. See State v.
Wurzelbacher, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130011, 2013-Ohio-4009, ¶ 8; State v.
6
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Grant, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120695, 2013-Ohio-3421, ¶ 9-16 (holding that a
judgment of conviction is void only to the extent that a sentence is unauthorized by
statute or does not include a statutorily mandated term or if the trial court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction or the authority to act); see also State v. Hayes, 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-130450, 2014-Ohio-1263, ¶ 5 (holding that the ineffective assistance
of counsel does not render a conviction void).
We Affirm
{¶15} Because the common pleas court had no jurisdiction to entertain
Smith’s postconviction petition, the petition was subject to dismissal without an
evidentiary hearing. See R.C. 2953.21(D) and 2953.23(A). We, therefore, modify the
court’s judgment denying the petition to reflect its dismissal. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(a).
And we affirm that judgment as modified.
Judgment affirmed as modified.
BERGERON and WINKLER, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
7