State v. Klein

Citations

• 165 N.E.3d 800
• 2020 Ohio 6948

Syllabus

POSTCONVICTION—JURISDICTION—CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL—VIOLENT OFFENDER DATABASE: Defendant's postconviction allied-offenses and sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims were subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction: the claims were reviewable under R.C. 2953.21 et seq., governing the proceedings on a petition for postconviction relief, because they sought relief based on alleged constitutional violations during the proceedings leading to defendant's convictions, R.C. 2953.21(A)(1) but the postconviction statutes did not confer jurisdiction to entertain the claims, because neither claim satisfied R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)'s time restrictions or R.C. 2953.23's jurisdictional requirements for entertaining a late postconviction claim nor could relief on those grounds have been afforded under the jurisdiction to correct a void judgment, because defendant's convictions were not void when entered by a court having personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. The common pleas court erred in refusing to entertain defendant's R.C. 2903.42(A)(2)(b) motion to rebut the R.C. 2903.42(A)(1) presumption requiring him to enroll for ten years in the violent-offender database: defendant's right to rebut the presumption arose on the March 20, 2019 effective date of the violent-offender-database statutes, when defendant was, by operation of law, classified under R.C. 2903.41(A)(2) as a violent offender and the court had jurisdiction to entertain defendant's motion to rebut the presumption, when defendant satisfied the R.C. 2903.42(A)(2)(b) requirement that the motion be filed \prior to [his] release from confinement.\