Background
Marquis L. Bollar pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter, felonious assault, and having a weapon while under disability after shooting and killing Erica Delong. The trial court merged the involuntary-manslaughter and felonious-assault offenses for sentencing but imposed consecutive prison terms for two firearm specifications, producing an aggregate minimum term of 20 years and maximum term of 25.5 years.
Bollar challenged the firearm-specification sentences on direct appeal, but the Fifth District affirmed, and the Ohio Supreme Court later held that R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) required separate prison terms for multiple firearm specifications in his circumstances. After an earlier postconviction challenge was rejected, Bollar filed a second petition in March 2026. The trial court denied it as untimely and successive, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23 and that the claims were also barred by res judicata.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that Bollar’s petition was untimely and successive and that he failed to satisfy the statutory requirements permitting a court to consider such a petition. The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to reach the petition’s merits and was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
The court also held that res judicata barred Bollar’s renewed sentencing claims because he had raised, or could have raised, them in prior proceedings. It further concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review separate April 30 and May 28, 2026 orders because Bollar’s notice of appeal designated only the May 13 order denying postconviction relief. Finally, because an untimely petition could be summarily dismissed, Bollar had no right to file a reply memorandum before dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- An Ohio trial court lacks jurisdiction over an untimely or successive postconviction petition unless the petitioner satisfies R.C. 2953.23.
- Res judicata bars postconviction claims that were raised or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.
- An appellate court cannot review orders not designated in the notice of appeal, and a petitioner is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing or reply memorandum.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the strict procedural limits governing Ohio postconviction proceedings. Recasting a previously rejected sentencing argument and offering material outside the original record will not reopen a final judgment when the petition is untimely, successive, and fails to meet the statutory jurisdictional exception.
It also underscores the importance of precisely identifying every challenged order in the notice of appeal. Even related rulings fall outside appellate review when they are not properly designated.