[Cite as State v. Carter, 2017-Ohio-4354.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
ALLEN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1-17-09
v.
DAMION LAMARR CARTER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CR96 01 0007
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: June 19, 2017
APPEARANCES:
Damion Lamarr Carter, Appellant
Jana E. Emerick for Appellee
Case No. 1-17-09
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Damion Lamarr Carter (“Carter”), brings this
appeal from the February 8, 2017, judgment of the Allen County Common Pleas
Court denying Carter’s petition for post-conviction relief related to a 1996 murder
conviction. On appeal, Carter argues, inter alia, that his guilty plea was not
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered, that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel during his original court proceedings, and that the trial court
erred when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing pursuant to R.C. 2945.71.
Procedural History
{¶2} On January 11, 1996, Carter was indicted for Aggravated Murder in
violation of R.C. 2903.01(B) with a firearm specification. On March 8, 1996, Carter
pled guilty to the amended charge of Murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A) with
a firearm specification. Cater was sentenced to serve 15 years to life on the Murder
conviction and a mandatory 3-year prison term on the firearm specification. The
prison terms were ordered to be served consecutive to each other for an aggregate
prison term of 18 years to life. Carter did not file a direct appeal of his conviction
or sentence to this court.
{¶3} Since his initial sentencing, Carter has filed multiple petitions for post-
conviction relief and multiple motions to withdraw his guilty plea. First, in 1999
Carter filed a “Petition to Vacate or Set Aside Sentence.” In the petition, Carter
-2-
Case No. 1-17-09
argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial court level. The
trial court denied Carter’s petition, considering it both as a post-conviction petition
and as a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Carter filed for reconsideration with
the trial court, which was denied, then he filed an untimely appeal to this Court,
which was dismissed.
{¶4} In October of 2007, Carter filed another petition for post-conviction
relief. The trial court found that the petition was untimely and noted that it could
dismiss the petition; however, the trial court also found that Carter’s arguments were
barred by res judicata. The trial court thus denied Carter’s petition.
{¶5} In September of 2012, Carter filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea
arguing, inter alia, that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. Carter’s motion
was denied, with the trial court finding that Carter’s plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered. Carter appealed to this Court in State v. Carter, 3d Dist. Allen
No. 1-12-43 (Mar. 11, 2013), and we affirmed the trial court’s denial of Carter’s
motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
{¶6} Carter then filed another motion to withdraw his guilty plea in August
of 2013, arguing, inter alia, that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent
due to ineffective assistance of counsel. That motion was denied by the trial court
as having no merit even if it was not barred by res judicata. Carter appealed to this
Court and this Court dismissed the appeal.
-3-
Case No. 1-17-09
{¶7} In October of 2013, Carter filed a third petition for post-conviction
relief. The trial court again denied Carter’s petition and he appealed to this Court.
We again dismissed Carter’s petition finding that “[t]he trial court and this Court on
appeal have already determined that, for numerous reasons, there is no merit to
Appellant’s request for post-conviction relief.” State v. Carter, 3d Dist. Allen No.
1-13-57 (Nov. 19, 2013).
{¶8} On February 6, 2017, Carter filed yet another petition for post-
conviction relief. The trial court denied Carter’s motion, providing a thorough
explanation that Carter’s petition was untimely by well over a decade and that he
failed to demonstrate any exceptions allowing filing outside of the 365-day time
limit.1 The trial court also found that Carter’s arguments were barred by res judicata.
The trial court’s judgment entry denying Carter’s petition was filed February 8,
2017. It is from this judgment that Carter appeals asserting the following
assignments of error for our review.
Assignment of Error No. 1
Carter’s guilty plea was not [entered] knowingly, intelligently,
and voluntarily it was the product of government interference
with R.C. §2945.71, Carter’s right to effective assistance of
counsel for his defense, right to a fair and speedy trial, right to
due process and equal protection of the law under the Fifth, Sixth,
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and Article I §10 of the Constitution of the State of Ohio.
1
At the time of Carter’s conviction, the time limit was only 180 days. Regardless of which time limit was
applied here, Carter is far beyond the requisite limit.
-4-
Case No. 1-17-09
Assignment of Error No. 2
Carter’s guilty plea was not [entered] knowingly, intelligently,
and voluntarily it was the product of coercion by defense counsel
Maria Santo who had purposely and wantonly provided Carter
with erroneous advice and assistance to deny Carter a dismissal
and discharge pursuant to R.C. §2945.71, right to effective
assistance of counsel for his defense, and the right to a fair and
speedy trial in violation of Carter’s Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I §10 of
the Constitution of the State of Ohio.
Assignment of Error No. 3
Trial Court erred prejudice [sic] when it denied Carter an
evidentiary hearing on a R.C. §2945.71 violation.
{¶9} Due to the disposition we will address all of the assignments of error
together.
First, Second, and Third Assignments of Error
{¶10} In Carter’s assignments of error he makes various contentions arguing
that his conviction should be overturned or that he should be at least allowed to
withdraw his guilty plea. Carter has made the same or similar arguments numerous
times to the trial court and to this Court in the past. As the procedural history of this
case demonstrates, we have repeatedly found that Carter’s post-conviction petitions
are untimely, that Carter has demonstrated no exception to the post-conviction
timelines, and that even if the petitions were timely, the arguments contained therein
are barred by res judicata.
{¶11} The same analysis that this Court has referenced in the previous Carter
decisions is applicable here. Carter’s petition is untimely. “Failure to file on time
-5-
Case No. 1-17-09
negates the jurisdiction of the trial court to consider the petition, unless the
untimeliness is excused under R.C. § 2953.23(A)(1)(a).” State v. Brown, 2d Dist.
Darke No. 1747, 2009–Ohio–3430, ¶ 17 (citation omitted). While exceptions to the
time limits for post-conviction relief petitions exist as stated in R.C. 2953.23, none
of them are applicable here. Therefore, the proper action by the trial court would
have been to dismiss Carter’s petition.
{¶12} Although trial courts should technically dismiss untimely post-
conviction motions for lack of jurisdiction, a trial court does not commit reversible
error by denying an untimely post-conviction petition. See, e.g., State v. Hatfield,
10th Dist. No. 07AP-784, 2008-Ohio-1377, ¶ 8, citing State v. Hamilton, 10th Dist.
No. 03AP-852, 2004-Ohio-2573, ¶ 9 and State v. Hensley, 9th Dist. No.
03CA008293, 2003-Ohio-6457, ¶ 7. Here, while the trial court should have
dismissed Carter’s petition due to a lack of jurisdiction, the trial court proceeded to
address Carter’s arguments and determined that his arguments were barred by the
doctrine of res judicata as they could have been raised on a timely, direct appeal.
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final
judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel
from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from that judgment,
any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been
raised by the defendant at the trial, which resulted in that judgment of conviction,
-6-
Case No. 1-17-09
or on an appeal from that judgment.”). We agree with the trial court that even if
Carter’s claims were timely, they are barred by res judicata. His assignments of
error are thus not well-taken, and they are all overruled.
Conclusion
{¶13} For the foregoing reasons Carter’s assignments of error are overruled
and the judgment of the Allen County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
PRESTON, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.
/jlr
-7-
State v. Carter
Combined Opinion