Background
Anthony Cooper-King was convicted after a jury trial of possessing heroin, a fentanyl-related compound, and cocaine. The Stark County Court of Common Pleas imposed consecutive prison terms totaling 20 to 24 years. The Fifth District previously affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal.
Cooper-King later sought leave to file an untimely petition for postconviction relief based on allegedly exculpatory bank records, dash-camera footage, and an affidavit from a co-defendant claiming ownership of the drugs. After the denial of that request was affirmed, Cooper-King filed a second request for leave. It repeated the earlier evidence and arguments and added an affidavit from his mother concerning text messages found on her phone. The trial court denied the second request.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. Because the trial transcript in Cooper-King’s direct appeal was filed on April 29, 2024, his postconviction deadline expired on April 29, 2025. His January 27, 2026 filing was untimely, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider it unless he satisfied an exception under R.C. 2953.23(A).
Cooper-King did not establish that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts supporting his claims. His renewed arguments concerning the bank records, dash-camera footage, co-defendant’s affidavit, and counsel’s failure to file a timely petition were barred by res judicata because they had already been raised and rejected. His mother’s new affidavit also failed because it did not explain why reasonable diligence could not have uncovered the text messages during the statutory period. Because the petition was untimely, the trial court was not required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court lacks jurisdiction over an untimely postconviction petition unless the petitioner satisfies the statutory requirements in R.C. 2953.23(A).
- Successive postconviction petitions cannot repackage claims or evidence that were or could have been raised earlier.
- Being unaware that evidence exists is not the same as being unavoidably prevented from discovering it through reasonable diligence.
- A trial court need not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying an untimely postconviction petition.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict jurisdictional nature of Ohio’s postconviction filing deadline. A petitioner relying on newly discovered material must explain specifically why the evidence could not have been found within the statutory period despite reasonable diligence.
It also confirms that res judicata applies to successive postconviction proceedings, preventing defendants from obtaining renewed review merely by resubmitting or reframing previously rejected claims.