State v. Morton
| Decision Date | 07 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 110946 |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 2358 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEREMIAH D. MORTON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
2022-Ohio-2358
STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JEREMIAH D. MORTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 110946
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
July 7, 2022
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-19-636658-A
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.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
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
his petition without making findings of fact and conclusions of law. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court and remand for further proceedings.
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
have "impeached [the victim's] account of what had occurred," "undermined the reliability of her account" and showed the jury that "the police * * * planted the seed that [Morton] raped the victim and * * * coerced her into saying she was raped." In support of his claims, Morton cited to the trial transcript. He did not submit any affidavits, the body camera footage or any other evidence in support of his petition.
{¶ 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 [petition 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 error[2] and was "now requesting leave to file the petition on the correct docket."
{¶ 6} Contemporaneous to the filing of the request for leave to plead, Morton electronically refiled the petition for postconviction relief that had been previously e-filed and docketed on December 23, 2020 under Appeal No. 109200. On January 6, 2021, the trial court granted Morton's motion for leave to refile the petition for postconviction relief.
{¶ 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 R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) and did not "prove a substantive claim for relief." The trial court granted the state's motion for leave. On February 28, 2021, Morton filed a response to the state's motion. In his response, Morton reiterated his arguments that use of the body camera footage at trial would have "cast reasonable doubt" on the victim's trial testimony and provided "video evidence of police coercion" of the victim and that trial counsel's failure to "play the video for the jury" violated Morton's "due process rights."
{¶ 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 postconviction relief without filing any findings of fact or conclusions of law with respect to the dismissal.
Law and Analysis
{¶ 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 R.C. 2953.21(D).
{¶ 11} Former R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a)[3] provides, in relevant part:
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 R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) provides, in relevant part:
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 * * * [.]
See also R.C. 2953.23(A) ("a court may not entertain a petition filed after the expiration of the period prescribed in [R.C. 2353.21(A)]" unless one of the exceptions set forth in R.C.2953.23(A)(1) or (2) applies).
{¶ 13} RC. 2953.21(D) states that "[i]f the court dismisses the petition, it shall make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to such dismissal." See also RC. 2953.21(H) ("If the court does not find grounds for granting relief, it shall make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall enter judgment denying relief on the petition."). However, a trial court has "no legal duty" to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when dismissing or denying an untimely petition for postconviction relief. See State v. Atahiya, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109726, 2021-Ohio-1488, ¶ 25; State ex rel. Harris v. Sutula, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107662, 2018-Ohio-5045, ¶ 9, citing State ex rel. Kimbrough v. Greene, 98 Ohio St.3d 116, 2002-Ohio-7042, 781 N.E.2d 155, ¶ 6, and State ex rel. Dillon v. Cottrill, 145 Ohio St.3d 264, 2016-Ohio-626, 48 N.E.3d 552, ¶ 5.
{¶ 14} The timeliness requirement of R.C. 2953.21 is jurisdictional. State v. Robinson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109159, 2020-Ohio-4470, ¶ 13; State v. Jackson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100048, 2014-Ohio-1514, ¶ 19. Therefore, a trial court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an untimely filed petition for postconviction relief that does not meet the exceptions set forth in R.C. 2953.23(A). State v. Medina, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110726, 2022-Ohio-1070, ¶ 11-14; State v. Kleyman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93896, 2010-Ohio-3612, ¶ 35.
{¶ 15} Morton does not contend that an exception set forth in R.C. 2953.23(A) applies. Accordingly, the only issue in this case is whether Morton's petition was timely under former R.C. 2953.21(A).
{¶ 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 R.C. 2953.21(D) explaining why it denied his petition. Morton contends that the "timeliness requirement" under former R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) requires only "the petition 'shall be filed' within [365 days] from filing of the record - without specification in that subsection as to where it must be filed to be considered timely." He further contends that the "initial[] inadvertent[]...
To continue reading
Request your trial