State v. Tapscott, 2025-Ohio-5609
Case Information
Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh Appellate District, Mahoning County
Date: 2025-12-16
Citation: 2025-Ohio-5609
Read the Opinion
Summary
Summary: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Defendant-Appellant’s second untimely petition for postconviction relief, finding it procedurally barred by res judicata and lacking in substantive support. The defendant’s sentencing claims, including errors related to consecutive sentencing and merger of allied offenses, were previously litigated or could have been raised on direct appeal.
Key Holdings
- A second petition for postconviction relief filed beyond the statutory deadline is untimely and may be dismissed if no exception under R.C. 2953.23 is met
- Claims previously raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred by res judicata
- A trial court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing a successive postconviction petition without a hearing if it lacks supporting evidence or substantive grounds for relief
- A sentencing error in a matter over which the court had jurisdiction renders the sentence voidable not void and must be challenged on direct appeal
- Repetitive litigation of previously rejected claims is insufficient to establish new grounds for postconviction relief
More Information
Defendant-Appellant filed a second pro se postconviction relief petition in May 2025, captioned “Motion to Correct a Void Sentence,” challenging the legality of consecutive sentences imposed and arguing for merger of aggravated robbery convictions as allied offenses. The petition followed more than a decade of prior appeals and postconviction motions. In 2011, Defendant-Appellant was convicted by jury and bench trials for aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and having weapons under disability, with firearm specifications, receiving an aggregate 28-year sentence. On direct appeal in 2012, the appellate court remanded for resentencing due to improper merger handling, but affirmed the convictions and the rejection of the allied offenses claim.
Defendant-Appellant failed to appeal the resentencing judgment issued in October 2012. In 2020, he raised similar merger arguments which were rejected in a prior postconviction proceeding as untimely and substantively deficient. His latest petition, filed over 12 years post-resentencing and well past the statutory deadline, was again dismissed by the trial court without a hearing.
On appeal, the court found that Defendant-Appellant failed to demonstrate any exception to the timeliness requirements under R.C. 2953.23. His claims were not supported by new evidence, nor did they assert a new right made retroactive. Additionally, his claims were substantively barred by res judicata, as they had been previously adjudicated or could have been raised earlier. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the petition lacked any substantive basis or procedural viability.