State v. Nelson ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Nelson, 2024-Ohio-1822.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
Case No. 2023CA00064
TAHI NELSON
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2020CR0921
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 9, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
KYLE L. STONE ALLISON F. HIBBARD
Prosecuting Attorney 4403 St. Clair Avenue
Stark County, Ohio Cleveland, Ohio 44103
CHRISTOPHER A. PIEKARSKI
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Appellate Division
110 Central Plaza South, Suite #510
Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
Stark County, Case No. 2023CA00064 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Tahi Nelson appeals the May 25, 2023 Judgment
Entry entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his petition for
post-conviction relief and granted plaintiff-appellee the state of Ohio’s motion to dismiss.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
{¶2} On July 27, 2020, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on one
count of murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A)/(D) and R.C. 2929.02(B), an unclassified
felony, with an attendant firearm specification; and one count of having weapons under
disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2)(B), a third-degree felony. Appellant
proceeded to jury trial on Count One, but waived his right to a jury trial on Count Two.
After hearing all the evidence and deliberating, the jury found Appellant guilty of murder
and the accompanying firearm specification. Upon consideration of the evidence
presented at the trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty of having weapons under
disability.
{¶3} The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing on September 15, 2021, and
imposed an aggregate term of incarceration of 21 years to life. Appellant filed a timely
appeal to this Court, which affirmed his convictions and sentence. State v. Nelson, 5th
Dist. Stark No. 2021CA00112, 2022-Ohio-4170.
{¶4} On February 16, 2023, Appellant filed a Petition to Vacate or Set Aside
Judgment of Conviction or Sentence. On February 23, 2023, the state filed a motion for
leave to file a response. Therein, the state not only requested additional time in which to
1 A Statement of the Facts underlying Appellant's convictions and sentence is unnecessary to our
disposition of this Appeal, however, a complete statement of the facts is set forth in our previous decision
in State v. Nelson, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2021CA00112, 2022-Ohio-4170.
Stark County, Case No. 2023CA00064 3
respond, but also asserted the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider the merits
of the petition as such was untimely and Appellant failed to attempt to satisfy the
jurisdictional requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A). Appellant filed a response to the state’s
motion for leave. Appellant did not oppose the state’s request for additional time in which
to file its response to his petition for post-conviction relief, but did dispute the state’s
assertion the petition was untimely. Specifically, Appellant noted:
The Fifth District Court of Appeals issued a judgment entry on
February 17, 2022 stating “that on 2/17/2022, the record was filed in the
Court of Appeals. The following items were filed: (X) Docket and Journal
entries from the trial court (X) Transcript of Proceedings.” Accordingly,
pursuant to this entry, the Petition in the instant matter was timely filed.
Defendant-Petitioner’s Response to State’s Motion for Leave at p.1,
unpaginated.
{¶5} The trial court granted the state an extension to and including March 9,
2023, in which to file its response. On March 9, 2023, the state filed its response in
opposition. The state again asked the trial court to dismiss Appellant’s petition for lack of
jurisdiction. In the alternative, the state argued the petition should be summarily denied
on the basis of res judicata.
{¶6} Via Judgment Entry filed May 25, 2023, the trial court denied Appellant’s
petition for post-conviction relief and granted the state’s motion to dismiss. The trial court
found Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief was untimely filed, and Appellant failed
Stark County, Case No. 2023CA00064 4
to demonstrate the applicability of any of the exceptions set forth in R.C. 2953.23(A),
which would permit the trial court to consider the untimely petition. The trial court further
found Appellant’s claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata and were without
merit.
{¶7} It is from this judgment entry Appellant appeals, raising the following
assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING
APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF.
I.
{¶8} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a), a convicted defendant who asserts a
denial or infringement of constitutional rights sufficient to render his conviction void or
voidable may file a petition asking the court that imposed sentence to vacate the judgment
or sentence or to grant other relief.
{¶9} We review a decision to grant or deny a petition for post-conviction relief
under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446, 2022-Ohio-
3991, 205 N.E.3d 513, ¶ 38, citing State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679,
860 N.E.2d 77, ¶ 51-52, 58. “But whether a trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction to
entertain an untimely, second, or successive petition for postconviction relief is a question
of law, which we review de novo.” Id., citing State v. Apanovitch, 155 Ohio St.3d 358,
2018-Ohio-4744, 121 N.E.3d 351, ¶ 24.
Stark County, Case No. 2023CA00064 5
{¶10} R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a) requires a petition for post-conviction relief “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.”
{¶11} In its May 25, 2023 Judgment Entry, the trial court found, “[p]ursuant to the
Clerk of Court’s docket, the trial transcript was filed on February 15, 2022;” therefore,
“[Appellant] was required to file his petition for post-conviction relief on or before February
15, 2023.” The trial court concluded, because Appellant filed his petition on February 16,
2023, the petition was untimely. We disagree.
{¶12} Appellant maintains his petition was timely filed within the 365-day window
set forth in R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a), as this Court’s “official judgment entry” issued February
17, 2022, stated “the transcript of the proceedings had been filed that date.” Brief of
Appellant at p. 9. The “official judgment entry” upon which Appellant relies is the Clerk’s
App. R. 11(B) notice, notifying the parties and this Court the record for appeal is
complete. We note an App. R. 11(B) notice from the Clerk of the Court of Appeals is not
an “official judgment entry” from a Court of Appeals. “App. R. 11(B) simply requires notice
be sent to the parties that the entire record is filed with the court of appeals, which includes
all papers and exhibits filed in the trial court, a transcript of proceedings, and a certified
copy of the docket and journal entries.” State v. Reeves, 2nd Dist.
Montgomery App. Nos. 17631 and 17768, 1999 WL 1127401. However, we find
Appellant’s reliance on the App. R. 11(B) notice was not misplaced.
{¶13} R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) clearly and unequivocally states, “a petition under
division (A)(1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section shall be filed no later than three hundred
Stark County, Case No. 2023CA00064 6
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.” R.C. 2953.21 (Emphasis
added).
{¶14} The trial transcript was filed with the Clerk of the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas on February 15, 2022. The only record establishing when “the trial
transcript [was] filed in the court of appeals,” as required by R.C. 2953.21(A)(2), is the
App. R. 11(B) notice from the Clerk of this Court, indicating “on 2/17/2022, the record was
filed in the Court of Appeals. The following items were filed: (X) Docket and Journal entries
from the trial court (X) Transcript of Proceedings.” Accordingly, we find Appellant had
365 days from February 17, 2022, in which to file a petition for post-conviction relief and
the trial court erred in finding Appellant’s petition was untimely.
{¶15} The trial court also found Appellant’s petition was barred by the doctrine of
res judicata.
{¶16} It is well-settled, “pursuant to res judicata, a defendant cannot raise an issue
in a [petition] for post-conviction relief if he or she could have raised the issue on direct
appeal.” State v. Elmore, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2005–CA–32, 2005-Ohio-5940 (Citation
omitted.) Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars the
defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceedings,
except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or claimed lack of due process that
the defendant raised or could have raised at the trial which resulted in that judgment of
conviction or on appeal from that judgment. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d
104 (1967). A defendant who was represented by counsel is barred from raising an issue
Stark County, Case No. 2023CA00064 7
in a petition for post-conviction relief if the defendant raised or could have raised the issue
at trial or on direct appeal. State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 671 N.E.2d 233 (1996).
{¶17} However, res judicata will not bar a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel if it is based upon evidence dehors the record. State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112,
113-114, 443 N.E.2d 169 (1982). Overcoming the bar of res judicata with evidence
outside the record does not automatically entitle the petitioner to a hearing unless
petitioner proffers “evidence which, if believed, would establish not only that his trial
counsel had substantially violated at least one of a defense attorney's essential duties to
his client but also that said violation was prejudicial to the [petitioner].” Id.{¶18} The Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Blanton, 171 Ohio St.3d 19, 2022-Ohio-
3985, 215 N.E.2d 467, established a two-part inquiry for courts to use when evaluating a
postconviction claim premised upon an allegation of ineffective assistance of
counsel. Id. at ¶ 33-34. First, the court must conduct a res judicata analysis to determine
whether the petitioner has introduced competent evidence of ineffective assistance that
was not included in the trial court record. Id. at ¶ 33. If so, the court must determine if that
evidence presents substantive grounds for relief; “that is, if believed, would the newly
presented evidence—together with any evidence in the trial record—establish that
counsel was ineffective?” Id. at ¶ 33-34. The Supreme Court cautioned courts often
“conflate” these two inquiries but the “better practice is to treat [them] as analytically
distinct.” Id.
{¶19} Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief is premised upon evidence
dehors the record; therefore, we find the trial court erred in finding the petition was bared
by res judicata. Accordingly, we find the trial court should have conducted the two-part
Stark County, Case No. 2023CA00064 8
inquiry established by the Ohio Supreme Court in Blanton, supra, in evaluating
Appellant’s petition.
{¶20} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is sustained.
{¶21} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and
the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and the law.
By: Hoffman, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur