Background
Estephen Castellon was convicted in 2017 of raping and kidnapping his girlfriend’s 18-year-old daughter and was sentenced to seven years in prison. The Eighth District affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. His application to reopen that appeal and his first two postconviction-relief petitions were also unsuccessful.
In February 2025, Castellon filed a third postconviction-relief petition. He relied principally on an affidavit from Westlake Police digital-forensics examiner Richard Johnson concerning the 2017 extraction of data from Castellon’s cell phone, as well as information concerning deleted body-camera footage. Castellon contended that this was newly discovered evidence showing perjury, fabrication, speedy-trial violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the summary denial of the petition. Castellon filed it far beyond the statutory deadline, and he did not satisfy the jurisdictional exception for an untimely and successive petition under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1). In particular, he did not show that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts supporting his claims.
The record showed that Castellon knew at trial that Johnson had performed the phone extraction, and nothing prevented him from calling Johnson as a witness then. Castellon also knew about the body-camera footage and had raised related issues at trial, in his direct appeal, federal habeas proceedings, and his first postconviction petition. Because he failed the first statutory prong, the court did not consider the second. It further held that res judicata independently barred the claims because they were raised or could have been raised earlier.
Key Takeaways
- An untimely, successive Ohio postconviction petition requires proof that the petitioner was unavoidably prevented from discovering the supporting facts.
- Evidence is not newly discovered when the defendant knew the relevant witness, investigation, or underlying facts at the time of trial.
- Res judicata bars postconviction claims that were or could have been litigated at trial or on direct appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that later-obtained affidavits and public-records responses do not reopen postconviction review when they concern facts already known to the defendant. Petitioners must establish both statutory jurisdiction for a late successive filing and a claim not barred by prior litigation.