DocketNumber: Case No. 98-COA-01248
Judges: <italic>Farmer, J.</italic>
Filed Date: 7/29/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
A jury trial commenced on May 24, 1994. The jury found appellant guilty as charged. By judgment entry filed July 12, 1994, the trial court sentenced appellant to a total term of three years in prison.
On September 20, 1996, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief and filed an amended petition on November 15, 1996. On January 9, 1998, appellee, the State of Ohio, filed a motion to dismiss appellant's petition. By judgment entry filed January 12, 1998, the trial court denied appellant's petition.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
TRIAL COURT ABUSED IT'S POWER OF DISCRETION BY ACCEPTING THE PROSECUTOR'S CONTENTION OF UNTIMELY FILING OF PETITION WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF CURRENT LAW, DENYING THE DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS.
II
TRIAL COURT ABUSED IT'S POWER OF DISCRETION BY ACCEPTING THE PROSECUTOR'S CONTENTION OF NO SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS FOR RELIEF WERE SOUGHT WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF A HEARING, DENYING THE DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS.
III
TRIAL COURT ABUSED IT'S POWER OF DISCRETION BY ACCEPTING THE PROSECUTOR'S CONTENTION OF NO RELIEF SOUGHT THAT CAN BE GRANTED BY POST CONVICTION RELIEF MOTION, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF A HEARING, DENYING THE DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS.
IV
TRIAL COURT ABUSED IT'S POWER OF DISCRETION BY ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR IN EXCESS OF 16 MONTHS (480 DAYS) TO ANSWER THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF A HEARING, AND ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR 11 MONTH'S TO ANSWER AFTER THE DEFENDANT FILED A MOTION FOR DECISION, DENYING THE DEFENDANT A REMEDY WITHOUT DENIAL OR DELAY AS GUARANTEED BY THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND DUE PROCESS.
Section 3 of S.B. No. 4 provides as follows:
A person who seeks post-conviction relief pursuant to sections
2953.21 through2953.23 of the Revised Code with respect to a case in which sentence was imposed prior to the effective date of this act or to an adjudication as a delinquent child and order of disposition ordered prior to the effective date of this act shall file a petition within the time required in division (A)(2) of section2953.21 of the Revised Code, as amended by this act, or within one year of the effective date of this act, whichever is later.
The effective date of S.B. No. 4 was September 21, 1995. Appellant filed his petition on September 20, 1996. Appellant's petition was filed within the one year time frame created by the act therefore, appellant's petition was timely.
Assignment of Error I is granted.
R.C.
By judgment entry filed January 12, 1998, the trial court denied appellant's petition as follows:
This cause came on by Defendant's Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. The State of Ohio filed a Motion to Dismiss the Defendant's Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief by and through the Ashland County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.
This Court FINDS that Defendant's Motion was not filed timely, the Defendant filed no substantial grounds for relief, and the Defendant has not sought any relief that can be granted through a post-conviction relief motion. Therefore, Defendant's Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is overruled.
This judgment entry does not comply with the mandates of R.C.
Appellant filed his petition for postconviction relief on September 20, 1996 and an amended petition on November 15, 1996. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss on January 9, 1998. R.C.
Although appellee's response was filed beyond the ten day time limit, the trial court had discretion to consider it "for good cause shown." In order to find an abuse of that discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983),
A trial court's initial review pursuant to R.C.
Assignment of Error IV is denied.
The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Ashland County, Ohio is hereby reversed and remanded.
By Farmer, P.J., Gwin, J. and Wise, J. concur.
For the reasons stated in the Memorandum-Opinion on file, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Ashland County, Ohio is reversed and remanded to said court for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to R.C.