(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, 121 N.E.3d 351.
State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion), 2018-Ohio-4744, 121 N.E.3d 351. · cites it 37דR.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, 232 N.E.3d 786. · cites it 74ד23—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, 157 Ohio St. 3d 460. · cites it 92ד23 “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. · cites it 30דHe 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, 192 N.E.3d 470. · cites it 10ד{¶ 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. 1st Dist. 2001). · cites it 25ד20 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, 157 N.E.3d 240. · cites it 16דNevertheless, 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. · cites it 15דPursuant 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. · cites it 25ד21(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, 205 N.E.3d 513. · cites it 9דAlthough 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. · cites it 34ד{¶ 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, 68 N.E.3d 381. · cites it 12ד21, and not under R.C. 2953.23, as it was clearly untimely filed.”
State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion), 2018-Ohio-4744, 121 N.E.3d 351. “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. 1st Dist. 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. “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, 157 N.E.3d 240. “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. Johnson, 2024-Ohio-134, 232 N.E.3d 786. “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, 205 N.E.3d 513. “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. “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, 121 N.E.3d 351. “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, 192 N.E.3d 470. “{¶ 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. Johnson, 2024-Ohio-134, 232 N.E.3d 786. “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, 157 Ohio St. 3d 460. “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, 192 N.E.3d 470. “{¶ 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. “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, 121 N.E.3d 351. “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, 121 N.E.3d 351. “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, 192 N.E.3d 470. “{¶ 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. “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, 232 N.E.3d 786. “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. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion), 2018-Ohio-4744, 121 N.E.3d 351. “R.C. 2953.23 provides: (A) Whether a hearing is or is not held on a petition filed pursuant to section 2953.”
State v. Hatton, 2022-Ohio-3991, 205 N.E.3d 513. “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…”
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.