State v. Perry
| Decision Date | 03 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 40299-40302,s. 40299-40302 |
| Citation | 39 O.O.2d 189,226 N.E.2d 104,10 Ohio St.2d 175 |
| Parties | , 39 O.O.2d 189 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. PERRY, Appellant. The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WALKER, Appellant. The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. BERARDINELLI, Appellant. The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. DISANTO, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Unless a petition by a prisoner for postconviction relief under Section 2953.21 et seq., Revised Code, and the files and records of the case show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court must cause notice of the petition to be served on the prosecuting attorney, grant a hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.
2. Where a petition for postconviction relief filed by counsel for a prisoner does not allege facts which, if proved, would entitle the prisoner to relief, the trial court may so find any summarily dismiss the petition.
3. Where a petition for postconviction relief filed by counsel for a prisoner does allege facts which, if proved, would entitle the prisoner to relief, but the files and records of the case negative the existence of facts sufficient to entitle the prisoner to relief, the trial court may so find and summarily dismiss the petition; but, in such an instance, the finding of the court should specify the portions of the files and records which negative the existence of alleged facts that would otherwise entitle the prisoner to relief.
4. A prisoner is entitled to postconviction relief under Section 2953.21 et seq., Revised Code, only if the court can find that there was such a denial or infringement of the rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the United States Constitution.
5. A judgment of conviction is void within the meaning of Section 2953.21 et seq., Revised Code, if rendered by a court having either no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or no jurisdiction of the subject matter, i. e., jurisdiction to try the defendant for the crime for which he was convicted.
6. Where a judgment of conviction is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and jurisdiction of the subject matter, such judgment is not void, and the cause of action merged therein becomes res judicata as between the state and the defendant.
7. Constitutional issues cannot be considered in postconviction proceedings under Section 2953.21 et seq., Revised Code, where they have already been or could have been fully litigated by the prisoner while represented by counsel, either before his judgment of conviction or on direct appeal from that judgment, and thus have been adjudicated against him.
8. The Supreme Court of Ohio will apply the doctrine of res judicata in determining whether postconviction relief should be given under Section 2953.21 et seq., Revised Code.
9. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial, which resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., and Joseph F. Donahue, Cleveland, for appellee.
James R. Willis, Cleveland, for appellants.
These are appeals from judgments of the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, affirming judgments of the Common Pleas Court, denying petitions for postconviction relief under Section 2953.21 et seq., Revised Code, by prisoners, who are in custody under sentence after conviction and are represented by counsel. In each case, the prisoner was represented by counsel at his trial, on appeal where taken from the judgment of conviction, and, where there was no such appeal, he was so represented until the time for appeal expired.
In denying relief in each case, the Common Pleas Court stated that it had made a 'search of the files, transcripts and records of the case' and found 'that there was no denial or infringement of the rights of' the prisoner 'in any of the several respects claimed in his (or her) petition, so as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States.'
Because this statute is relatively new and there is considerable doubt as to how it should be construed, this court allowed motions to certify the records.
Section 2953.21, Revised Code, reads:
'A prisoner in custody under sentence and claiming a right to be released on the ground that there was such a denial or infringement of his rights as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States, may file a verified petition at any time in the court which imposed sentence, stating the grounds relied upon, and asking the court to vacate or set aside the sentence.
'Unless the petition and the files and records of the case show to the satisfaction of the court that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served on the prosecuting attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.
'If the court finds that there was such a denial or infringement of the rights of the prinsoner as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States, it shall vacate and set aside the judgment, and shall discharge the prisoner judgment, and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial as taxed as in habeas corpus proceedings.'
Admittedly, the trial court did not 'cause notice' of the petition 'to be served on the prosecuting attorney, grant' any 'hearing thereon, determine the issues' or 'make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto' in any of these cases. The statute requires it to do so unless 'the petition and the files and records of the case show * * * that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.' Jones v. State (1966), 8 Ohio St.2d 21, 222 N.E.2d 313.
If a petition filed by counsel for a prisoner 1 does not allege facts which, if proved, would entitle the prisoner to relief, it is sufficient for the court to so find and summarily dismiss the petition.
If that petition does not allege such facts, but the files and records of the case negative the existence of facts sufficient to entitle the prisoner to relief, the court may so find and dismiss the petition. However, in such an instance, the finding of the court should specify the portions of the files and records which negative the existence of alleged facts that would otherwise entitle the prisoner to relief.
A prisoner is entitled to relief under the statute only if the court can find that there was such a denial or infringement of the rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States.
Within the meaning of the statute, a judgment of conviction is void if rendered by a court having either no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or no jurisdiction of the subject matter, i. e., jurisdiction to try the defendant for the crime for which he was convicted. Conversely, where a judgment of conviction is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and jurisdiction of the subject matter, such judgment is not void, and the cause of action merged therein becomes res judicata as between the state and the defendant. Perry v. Maxwell, Warden (1963), 175 Ohio St. 369, 195 N.E.2d 103; Mills v. Maxwell, Warden (1963), 174 Ohio St. 523, 190 N.E.2d 264; State v. Wozniak (1961), 172 Ohio St. 517, 522, 178 N.E.2d 800.
The word 'voidable' has caused some confusion. Thus, an erroneous judgment that is not void could be considered as in effect 'voidable,' so long as it may be set aside on appeal. Hence, it may be suggested that, because of the word 'voidable' in the statute, we should hold that constitutional issues can be considered and litigated in postconviction proceedings, even though they have already been or could have been fully litigated by a prisoner, either before his judgment of conviction or on direct appeal from that judgment, and thus have been adjudicated against him.
Such a holding would be wholly inconsistent with the doctrine of res judicata. There are no other words in our postconviction remedy statutes that would support a conclusion that the General Assembly intended to do away with the doctrine of res judicata so far as it relates to judgments of conviction.
The word 'voidable,' as used in Section 2953.21, Revised Code, can...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bucio v. Sutherland
...are not subject to a Petition for Post Conviction Relief and are subject to dismissal without hearing based on res judicata. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967). The Court therefore finds that Petitioner's claims meet the Perry test and concludes they are subject to dismissal without f......
-
Dickerson v. Warden
...of Ohio's doctrine of res judicata. See State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d (1982); State v. Ishmail, 67 Ohio St.2d 16 (1981); State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (claims must be raised on direct appeal, if possible, or they will be barred by the doctrine of res judicata.). The state courts we......
-
Moore v. Warden, London Corr. Inst.
...under Ohio's criminal res judicata doctrine. Ohio's doctrine of res judicata in criminal cases, enunciated in State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St. 2d 175, 226 N.E. 2d 104 (1967), is an adequate and independent state ground of decision. Durr v. Mitchell, 487 F.3d 423, 432 (6th Cir. 2007); Buell v. Mi......
-
Wilson v. Warden
...Ohio Revised Code § 2953.21. Therefore claims based on the record are barred by Ohio's criminal res judicata doctrine. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St. 2d 175 (1967)(emphasis sic.); see also State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St. 3d 112 (1982); State v. Duling, 21 Ohio St. 2d 13 (1970). The Perry rule has be......