Alberto Medina, the defendant-appellant, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief after being sentenced to 33 years to life in prison following a plea agreement in which he pled guilty to aggravated murder and endangering children. In September 2014, he faced a 12-count indictment that included serious charges such as aggravated murder and kidnapping. After entering the plea in December 2014, he did not appeal the sentence immediately but later sought a delayed appeal, claiming he was not informed of his right to appeal at sentencing. Both the Eighth District Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court denied his motions for delayed appeal.
Medina also filed a writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed, and subsequently submitted a pro se petition for postconviction relief in June 2021. He argued that the trial court failed to inform him of his appellate rights, including the right to counsel, and supported this with an affidavit asserting that knowledge of these rights would have prompted him to appeal on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and the voluntariness of his plea. The state opposed the petition, which the trial court denied in July 2021.
In his appeal, Medina raises three assignments of error: (1) a denial of due process due to the trial court's failure to inform him of his right to appeal, (2) a violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by not affording him similar appellate opportunities as other defendants, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to inform him of his right to appeal and counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Medina's petition.
Medina asserts that his petition for postconviction relief is valid under the precedent set in Future, contending that his direct appeal was untimely due to ignorance of the filing deadlines, which he attributes to inadequate communication from both his defense counsel and the trial court regarding his appellate rights. He argues that this failure constitutes a violation of his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, along with his right to effective assistance of counsel since his attorney did not inform him of his right to appeal.
In the Future case, the trial court neglected to inform the defendant of his appellate rights, leading him to file a motion for resentencing three years post-guilty plea, which the court granted. However, upon appeal, it was determined that the court lacked jurisdiction to vacate a final sentence without a postconviction relief petition, resulting in a reversal and remand for the trial court to reinstate its original sentence.
In the Gover case, a similar issue arose where the trial court informed the defendant of his right to appeal but failed to notify the appointed attorney, resulting in a missed timely appeal. After realizing the oversight, the defendant sought a delayed appeal, which was denied. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the proper recourse was for the defendant to file a postconviction relief petition under R.C. 2953.21, which permits such filings at any time, providing the trial court with the duty to assess the substantive grounds for relief.
The subsequent amendments to R.C. 2953.21 now impose a 365-day deadline for filing a postconviction relief petition if no direct appeal was taken, while R.C. 2953.23 allows for consideration of an untimely petition under specific circumstances, including being unavoidably prevented from discovering necessary facts or if a new constitutional right is recognized that could affect the outcome of the case.
The trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider Medina's untimely petition for postconviction relief, which was filed in June 2021, more than five years after the January 2016 deadline. Medina failed to demonstrate any applicable exceptions under R.C. 2953.23, as he did not show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering facts, identify a newly recognized federal or state right, or present new DNA evidence. Consequently, the trial court properly dismissed his petition. The court affirmed the dismissal and ordered Medina to pay costs, noting there were reasonable grounds for the appeal. A mandate was issued to enforce the judgment.
