State v. Watson , 2021 Ohio 2773 ( 2021 )

[Cite as State v. Watson, 2021-Ohio-2773.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
No. 110161
v. :
MAURICE WATSON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 12, 2021
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-18-643943-D
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Frank Romeo Zeleznikar, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Friedman & Gilbert, Mary Catherine Corrigan; Allison F.
Hibbard, for appellant.
LISA B. FORBES, J.:
Maurice Watson (“Watson”) appeals the trial court’s journal entry
denying his petition for postconviction relief. After reviewing the law and the
pertinent fact of the case, we affirm the trial court’s decision.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Following a bench trial, Watson was convicted of two counts of
aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1); two counts of aggravated
robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(3); three counts of felonious assault, in
violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2); one count of felonious assault, in violation of
R.C. 2903.11(A)(1); one count of discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited
premises, in violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3); and one count of having weapons
while under disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2).
The trial court sentenced him to 22 years in prison on May 30, 2019,
and subsequently resentenced him on June 17, 2019. Watson filed a delayed appeal
with this court on September 24, 2019. His convictions and sentence were
ultimately affirmed.
Watson filed a petition for postconviction relief in the trial court on
November 12, 2020. His petition alleged that his trial counsel failed to thoroughly
cross-examine detectives and that the state failed to preserve exculpatory evidence.
The trial court summarily denied Watson’s petition for postconviction relief on
November 16, 2020, without making any findings of fact or conclusions of law. It is
from this denial that Watson appeals.
II. Law and Analysis
Watson raises one assignment of error for our review, arguing that
the trial court erred when it dismissed his petition for postconviction relief because
it failed to issue the statutorily required findings of fact and conclusions of law. We
disagree.
“There is no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law for
an untimely petition.” State ex rel. Hilliard v. Russo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 103466, 2016-Ohio-594, ¶ 7. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(A), “a court may not
entertain a petition [for postconviction relief] filed after the expiration of the period
prescribed in [R.C. 2953.21(A)] * * *.” The timeliness requirements imposed by the
statute are strictly enforced. State v. Howard, 2016-Ohio-504, 59 N.E.3d 685, ¶ 17
(10th Dist.).
Petitions for postconviction relief “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 * * *. If no appeal is taken, * * * the petition shall be
filed no later than three hundred sixty-five days after the expiration of the time for
filing the appeal.” R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a).
Under App.R. 4, appellants have 30 days from the final judgment to
file an appeal. Watson was sentenced on June 17, 2019, making July 17, 2019, his
deadline to file a direct appeal. Watson did not file a notice of appeal until
September 24, 2019, which was accompanied by a motion for delayed appeal under
App.R. 5.
Watson argues that because the transcript of trial proceedings for his
delayed appeal was filed on November 12, 2019, he had 365 days from that date to
petition for postconviction relief. Further arguing that because 365 days from the
time he filed his transcript in the delayed appeal fell on November 11, 2020, which
was a court-observed holiday, Watson maintains his petition for postconviction
relief filed on November 12, 2020, was timely. In making this argument, Watson
ignores established Eighth District precedent.
This court has consistently held that the filing of a delayed appeal
does not toll the time requirement to file a petition for postconviction relief. See,
e.g., Hilliard, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103466, 2016-Ohio-594, at ¶ 8; State v. Cobb,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 80265, 2002-Ohio-2138, ¶ 26; State v. Fields, 136 Ohio
App.3d 393, 398, 736 N.E.2d 933 (8th Dist.1999). “Were we to accept the
proposition that a delayed appeal could stall the time limits contained in the
statute, this would have the net effect of providing no time limit at all for filing
petitions.” Fields at 398. “The language in the final sentence contained in
R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) has been interpreted to include those delayed appeals
permitted pursuant to App.R. 5(A).” Cobb at ¶ 24 (applying a prior version of the
statute that allowed for filing a petition for postconviction relief “no later than 180
days after the expiration of the time for filing an appeal” if no appeal was taken).
In light of this precedent, we are constrained to conclude that,
because Watson did not timely file a direct appeal, his deadline to file a petition for
postconviction relief was 365 days from the expiration of the time for filing a timely
appeal. See R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a). As noted, Watson’s direct appeal under App.R. 4
would have been due on July 17, 2019. Watson, therefore, had until July 16, 2020,
to file his petition for postconviction relief. He did not file his petition until
November 12, 2020. Watson missed the deadline.
Because Watson’s petition was not timely, the trial court was not
required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law before summarily denying
his petition. Watson’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue of out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR