Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2953 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23 (2026)

Post conviction relief petition - time for filing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
April 12, 2021
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 136 - 133rd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Whether a hearing is or is not held on a petition filed pursuant to section 2953.21 of the Revised Code, a court may not entertain a petition filed after the expiration of the period prescribed in division (A) of that section or a second petition or successive petitions for similar relief on behalf of a petitioner unless division (A)(1) or (2) of this section applies:

(1) Both of the following apply:

(a) Either the petitioner shows that the petitioner was unavoidably prevented from discovery of the facts upon which the petitioner must rely to present the claim for relief, or, subsequent to the period prescribed in division (A)(2) of section 2953.21 of the Revised Code or to the filing of an earlier petition, the United States Supreme Court recognized a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to persons in the petitioner's situation, and the petition asserts a claim based on that right.

(b) The petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense of which the petitioner was convicted or, if the claim challenges a sentence of death that, but for constitutional error at the sentencing hearing, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner eligible for the death sentence.

(2) The petitioner was convicted of a felony, the petitioner is an offender for whom DNA testing was performed under sections 2953.71 to 2953.81 of the Revised Code or under former section 2953.82 of the Revised Code and analyzed in the context of and upon consideration of all available admissible evidence related to the inmate's case as described in division (D) of section 2953.74 of the Revised Code, and the results of the DNA testing establish, by clear and convincing evidence, actual innocence of that felony offense or, if the person was sentenced to death, establish, by clear and convincing evidence, actual innocence of the aggravating circumstance or circumstances the person was found guilty of committing and that is or are the basis of that sentence of death.

As used in this division, "actual innocence" has the same meaning as in division (A)(1)(c) of section 2953.21 of the Revised Code, and "former section 2953.82 of the Revised Code" has the same meaning as in division (A)(1)(d) of section 2953.21 of the Revised Code.

(B) An order awarding or denying relief sought in a petition filed pursuant to section 2953.21 of the Revised Code is a final judgment and may be appealed pursuant to Chapter 2953. of the Revised Code.

If a petition filed pursuant to section 2953.21 of the Revised Code by a person who has been sentenced to death is denied and the person appeals the judgment, notwithstanding any law or court rule to the contrary, there is no limit on the number of pages in, or on the length of, a notice of appeal or briefs related to an appeal filed by the person. If any court rule specifies a limit on the number of pages in, or on the length of, a notice of appeal or briefs described in this division or on a prosecuting attorney's response or briefs with respect to such an appeal and a person who has been sentenced to death files a notice of appeal or briefs that exceed the limit specified for the petition, the prosecuting attorney may file a response or briefs that exceed the limit specified for the answer or briefs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,256 cases (444 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4744 (Ohio 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4744 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 37× “R.C. 2953.23 provides: (A) Whether a hearing is or is not held on a petition filed pursuant to section 2953.”
State v. Johnson, 2024 Ohio 134 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 74× “23—Recantation evidence—Trial court could have no jurisdiction to entertain untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief unless petitioner established (1) that he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering that victim had doubts about victim’s trial testimony…”
State v. Parker (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 3848 (Ohio 2019). · cites it 92× “23 “provides no jurisdiction” for a motion seeking sentencing relief based on Hand, and he therefore does not contest the state’s argument that a new constitutional ruling by this court will not sustain an untimely or successive petition for postconviction relief.”
State v. Cunningham, 2016 Ohio 3106 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 30× “He also argues that, even if his December 18, 2014 petition is an untimely, second petition, he satisfied the conditions of R.C. 2953.23. Finally, Cunningham makes several constitutional challenges to Ohio’s postconviction-relief statutes.”
State v. Bethel (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 783 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 10× “{¶ 3} The trial court denied Bethel’s motion for leave and the motion for a new trial and found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his successive postconviction petition.”
State v. Byrd, 762 N.E.2d 1043 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 25× “20 A trial court has jurisdiction to entertain an untimely or successive postconviction petition under the limited circumstances set forth in R.C. 2953.23. Prior to Senate Bill 4, R.C.”
State v. Jackson, 2020 Ohio 4015 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 16× “Nevertheless, Jackson argued that his petition met the exceptions outlined in R.C. 2953.23, and he argued that the trial court should therefore consider the merits of his claim.”
State v. Kane, 2017 Ohio 7838 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 15× “Pursuant to R.C. 2953.23, a court of common pleas may entertain an untimely filed petition for postconviction relief only under the following circumstances: 2 Pursuant to Sub.”
State v. Conway, 2019 Ohio 2260 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 25× “21(A)(1) only applies to an initial, timely petition for post-conviction relief, and not to a successive petition filed under R.C. 2953.23. Because the petition in Ketterer was an initial petition brought under R.”
State v. Hatton, 2022 Ohio 3991 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 9× “Although the trial court stated that Hatton’s “ ‘new evidence’ is not really new,” it did so in the context of applying res judicata, not in the context of assessing its jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23. Similarly, the court of appeals alluded to its finding that the Tejwani memo…”
State v. Lawson, 2014 Ohio 3554 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 34× “{¶ 21} Lawson asserts R.C. 2953.23 is unconstitutional on its face as it violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.”
State v. Waddy, 2016 Ohio 4911 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “21, and not under R.C. 2953.23, as it was clearly untimely filed.”
Show all 1,256 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Sutton, 2026 Ohio 281 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(1)(a)(b) — 1 case
Quinn v. Warden, London Corr. Inst. (S.D. Ohio 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(A) — 592 cases
State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4744 (Ohio 2018). “R.C. 2953.23 provides: (A) Whether a hearing is or is not held on a petition filed pursuant to section 2953.”
State v. Byrd, 762 N.E.2d 1043 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “20 A trial court has jurisdiction to entertain an untimely or successive postconviction petition under the limited circumstances set forth in R.C. 2953.23. Prior to Senate Bill 4, R.C.”
State v. Cunningham, 2016 Ohio 3106 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “He also argues that, even if his December 18, 2014 petition is an untimely, second petition, he satisfied the conditions of R.C. 2953.23. Finally, Cunningham makes several constitutional challenges to Ohio’s postconviction-relief statutes.”
State v. Jackson, 2020 Ohio 4015 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Nevertheless, Jackson argued that his petition met the exceptions outlined in R.C. 2953.23, and he argued that the trial court should therefore consider the merits of his claim.”
State v. Williams (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 7658 (Ohio 2016).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(A)(1) — 554 cases
State v. Johnson, 2024 Ohio 134 (Ohio 2024). “23—Recantation evidence—Trial court could have no jurisdiction to entertain untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief unless petitioner established (1) that he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering that victim had doubts about victim’s trial testimony…”
State v. Hatton, 2022 Ohio 3991 (Ohio 2022). “Although the trial court stated that Hatton’s “ ‘new evidence’ is not really new,” it did so in the context of applying res judicata, not in the context of assessing its jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23. Similarly, the court of appeals alluded to its finding that the Tejwani memo…”
State v. Conway, 2019 Ohio 2260 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “21(A)(1) only applies to an initial, timely petition for post-conviction relief, and not to a successive petition filed under R.C. 2953.23. Because the petition in Ketterer was an initial petition brought under R.”
State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4744 (Ohio 2018). “R.C. 2953.23 provides: (A) Whether a hearing is or is not held on a petition filed pursuant to section 2953.”
State v. Bethel (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 783 (Ohio 2022). “{¶ 3} The trial court denied Bethel’s motion for leave and the motion for a new trial and found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his successive postconviction petition.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(A)(1)(2) — 1 case
State v. Williams, 2013 Ohio 2989 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(A)(1)(A) — 1 case
State v. Cope, 2015 Ohio 3935 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(A)(1)(B) — 1 case
Ayers (N.D. Ohio 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(A)(1)(a) — 504 cases
State v. Johnson, 2024 Ohio 134 (Ohio 2024). “23—Recantation evidence—Trial court could have no jurisdiction to entertain untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief unless petitioner established (1) that he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering that victim had doubts about victim’s trial testimony…”
State v. Parker (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 3848 (Ohio 2019). “23 “provides no jurisdiction” for a motion seeking sentencing relief based on Hand, and he therefore does not contest the state’s argument that a new constitutional ruling by this court will not sustain an untimely or successive petition for postconviction relief.”
State v. Bethel (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 783 (Ohio 2022). “{¶ 3} The trial court denied Bethel’s motion for leave and the motion for a new trial and found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his successive postconviction petition.”
State v. Kane, 2017 Ohio 7838 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Pursuant to R.C. 2953.23, a court of common pleas may entertain an untimely filed petition for postconviction relief only under the following circumstances: 2 Pursuant to Sub.”
State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4744 (Ohio 2018). “R.C. 2953.23 provides: (A) Whether a hearing is or is not held on a petition filed pursuant to section 2953.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(A)(1)(b) — 344 cases
State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4744 (Ohio 2018). “R.C. 2953.23 provides: (A) Whether a hearing is or is not held on a petition filed pursuant to section 2953.”
State v. Bethel (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 783 (Ohio 2022). “{¶ 3} The trial court denied Bethel’s motion for leave and the motion for a new trial and found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his successive postconviction petition.”
State v. Cunningham, 2016 Ohio 3106 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “He also argues that, even if his December 18, 2014 petition is an untimely, second petition, he satisfied the conditions of R.C. 2953.23. Finally, Cunningham makes several constitutional challenges to Ohio’s postconviction-relief statutes.”
State v. Johnson, 2024 Ohio 134 (Ohio 2024). “23—Recantation evidence—Trial court could have no jurisdiction to entertain untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief unless petitioner established (1) that he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering that victim had doubts about victim’s trial testimony…”
Jells v. Mitchell, 538 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2008).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(A)(2) — 122 cases
State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4744 (Ohio 2018). “R.C. 2953.23 provides: (A) Whether a hearing is or is not held on a petition filed pursuant to section 2953.”
State v. Lott, 97 Ohio St. 3d 303 (Ohio 2002).
State v. Hatton, 2022 Ohio 3991 (Ohio 2022). “Although the trial court stated that Hatton’s “ ‘new evidence’ is not really new,” it did so in the context of applying res judicata, not in the context of assessing its jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23. Similarly, the court of appeals alluded to its finding that the Tejwani memo…”
State v. Lott, 2002 Ohio 6625 (Ohio 2002).
State v. Lordi, 778 N.E.2d 605 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(A)(l) — 1 case
Brenson (S.D. Ohio 2026).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(B) — 34 cases
State v. Nichols, 463 N.E.2d 375 (Ohio 1984).
State ex rel. Penland v. Dinkelacker (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3774 (Ohio 2020).
State v. Carter, 2018 Ohio 4115 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Boles, 2017 Ohio 786 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Taft, 2019 Ohio 1565 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(J) — 1 case
State v. Jenkins, 2016 Ohio 5533 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(a) — 1 case
State v. Moore, 2018 Ohio 2800 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(a)(1) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Stacey, 177 S.W.3d 813 (Ky. 2005).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23(a)(1)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Ward, 2023 Ohio 1606 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Ward, 2023 Ohio 1606 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.