State v. Johnson, Unpublished Decision (5-3-1999)
State v. Johnson, Unpublished Decision (5-3-1999)
Opinion of the Court
Roger C. Johnson appeals the Hocking County Municipal Court's dismissal of his motion to return property. Johnson asserts that the trial court violated his right to due process by assessing court costs against him without first holding a hearing on the matter. We disagree, because Johnson failed to file a timely motion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In July 1998, Johnson completed the payments on his fines and court costs. That same month, Johnson filed a motion to return property, arguing that the trial court violated the
Johnson appeals the trial court's dismissal of his motion, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to accord him due process to adjudicate the court costs.
R.C.
(2) A petition under division (A)(1) of this section shall be filed no later than one hundred eighty days after the date on which the trial transcript is filed in the court of appeals in the direct appeal * * *. If no appeal is taken, the petition shall be filed no later than one hundred eighty days after the expiration of the time for filing the appeal.
App. R. 4 (A) requires a party to file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the entry of judgment.
Johnson did not file a direct appeal of his sentence, which included the assessment of court costs against him. Thus, the latest date Johnson could have timely filed his petition for post-conviction relief was one hundred eighty days from the date the time for filing the appeal expired. R.C.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Hocking County Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.
Abele, J. and Evans, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the court
BY: _____________________ Roger L. Kline Presiding Judge
(A) Whether a hearing is or is not held on a petition filed pursuant to section (1) Either of the following applies: (a) The petitioner shows that the petitioner was unavoidably prevented from discovery of the facts upon which the petitioner must rely to present the claim from relief. (b) Subsequent to the period prescribed in division (A)(2) of section (2) The petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the 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 the constitutional error at the sentencing hearing, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner eligible for the death sentence.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.