State v. Dye
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 3191
Syllabus
Petition for postconviction relief R.C. 2953.23 jurisdiction de novo review untimely petition unavoidably prevented from discovering evidence Brady violation exculpatory evidence suppressed by prosecution evidence made available to defense counsel self-serving affidavit court may not entertain untimely petition. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the claimed exculpatory evidence was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the prosecution. His petition for postconviction relief was untimely, and he did not demonstrate a statutory exception that would allow the trial court to entertain his petition. The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition and should have dismissed it, but the error nonetheless was harmless.
Judges: Celebrezze
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
- Kyles v. WhitleySupreme Court· 1995-04-19· cited 6,003×
- Strickler v. GreeneSupreme Court· 1999-06-17· cited 4,383×
- State v. Bethel (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2022-03-22· cited 161×
- State v. JonesOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-08-16· cited 11×
- State v. HaleOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-10-26· cited 10×
- State v. HillOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-02-06· cited 8×
- State v. KennedyOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-01-11· cited 8×
- State v. HarrisonOhio Court of Appeals· 2018-04-12· cited 7×
- Olson v. WatsonOhio Court of Appeals· 1936-06-16· cited 7×
- State v. JonesOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-08-08· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.