State v. Duncan

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 2456

Syllabus

Petition for postconviction relief; amendment of petition; successive petition; res judicata; ineffective assistance of counsel; hearing. Judgment affirmed. Because the petitioner filed her motion to amend her petition for postconviction relief after the State filed its response, she was required to seek and be granted leave of court, which she failed to do. Further, because the trial court had already ruled on her petition at the time she filed her motion to amend, it was akin to a motion for reconsideration that the trial court was without authority to consider. Thus, the petitioner's motion to amend could only be treated as a second postconviction petition. Because the petitioner was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea rather than by reason of a trial, she could not demonstrate that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found her guilty, as required under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b). The petitioner was not entitled to a hearing because her claims were barred by res judicata and the petition did not set forth sufficient operative facts to establish substantive grounds for relief. The petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.