State v. Schulte, 10-96-15
| Decision Date | 12 February 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-96-15,10-96-15 |
| Citation | 118 Ohio App.3d 184,692 N.E.2d 237 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. SCHULTE, Appellant. Third District, Mercer County |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Paul E. Howell, Mercer County Prosecuting Attorney, Celina, for appellee.
Gary E. Schulte, pro se.
Gary Schulte ("appellant") appeals from a decision of the Common Pleas Court of Mercer County overruling his motion to vacate and/or set aside his conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.21, as untimely filed.
Appellant was indicted on August 12, 1993 for aggravated murder, a violation of R.C. 2903.01(B), with a gun specification. On September 2, 1993, the trial court filed a judgment entry after appellant pled guilty to aggravated murder, sentencing appellant to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after twenty years. Appellant's request to file a delayed appeal was overruled by this court on March 13, 1996. On September 18, 1996, appellant filed a motion to vacate and/or set aside his conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.21. Citing R.C. 2953.21(A)(2), the trial court denied the postconviction relief petition as untimely.
Appellant appeals this decision, asserting the following assignment of error:
"The trial court erred in dismissing Appellant's petition for post-conviction relief as being untimely filed."
The version of R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) in force at the time the trial court considered appellant's petition and upon which the trial court apparently relied when making its determination as to the timeliness of appellant's petition states:
This version of R.C. 2953.21, including the new time limit provision in (A)(2), became effective September 21, 1995. Prior to this amendment, the postconviction relief statute had allowed a petitioner to file a postconviction relief petition "at any time" after his conviction.
The bill passed by the General Assembly, signed by the Governor, and subsequently codified in R.C. 2953.21, effective September 21, 1995, was Senate Bill No. 4. Section 3 of S.B. No. 4 contains a provision which extends the time limit for filing postconviction relief petitions for defendants convicted prior to September 21, 1995. Section 3 states:
"A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Byrd
...before the amendment's effective date. See, e.g., State v. Tanner (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 550, 713 N.E.2d 480; State v. Schulte (1997), 118 Ohio App.3d 184, 692 N.E.2d 237; State v. Halliwell (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 730, 732 N.E.2d 405; State v. Reese (June 2, 1999), Mahoning App. No. 98CA3......
-
State v. John Byrd, 01-LW-3251
... ... See , ... e.g ., State v. Tanner (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d ... 550, 713 N.E.2d 480; State v. Schulte (1997), 118 ... Ohio App.3d 184, 692 N.E.2d 237; State v. Halliwell ... (July 29, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 75986, unreported; ... ...
-
State v. William H. Ashley
... ... No. 98CA5, unreported; also see ... State v. Pierce (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 578, 584, ... 713 N.E.2d 498, 502; State v. Schulte (1997), 118 ... Ohio App.3d 184, 186, 692 N.E.2d 237, 238. Appellant missed ... that deadline as well. Thus, the lower court was ... ...
-
In re Scott Snyder Alleged Delinquent Child Case, 02-LW-5774
... ... He also sought an ... evidentiary hearing on his motion. The state filed a motion ... to dismiss appellant's motion for post-conviction relief ... on the basis that ... within which a motion for post-conviction relief needed to be ... filed. SeeState v. Schulte(1997), 118 Ohio App.3d ... 184, 186, 692 N.E.2d 237 ... {¶16} ... R.C. 2953.21, in ... ...