[Cite as State v. Brewer , 2012-Ohio-5406.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 24910 vs. : T.C. CASE NOS. 2003 CR 1750 2006 CR 3678 WILLIAM BREWER : (Criminal appeal from Defendant-Appellant : Common Pleas Court)

. . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 21st day of November , 2012.

. . . . . . . . . MICHELE D. PHIPPS, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Atty. Reg. No. 0069829, 301 W. Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee WILLIAM BREWER, #A548-073, London Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 69, London, Ohio 43140 Defendant-Appellant

. . . . . . . . . HENDON, J. (by assignment):
{¶ 1} Petitioner-Appellant William C. Brewer presents on appeal four “assignments of error” that, when reduced to their essence, challeng e the Montgomery County2
Common Pleas Court’s judgment denying Brew er’s postconviction petiti on. We overrule the assignments of error and a ffirm the court’s judgment. {¶ 2} In 2003, in Case No. 2003-CR- 01750, Brewer was convicted upon a no-contest plea to attempted ki dnapping and sentenced to community control. He took no appeal from that conviction. {¶ 3} In 2007, in Case No. 2006-CR-03678, he wa s convicted in a bench trial of aggravated burglary, abduction, and having weapons under a disability. And he was convicted of violating the community-contro l sanction imposed in Case No. 2003-CR-01750. He unsuccessfully challenged hi s 2007 convictions in direct app eals to this court and to the Ohio Supreme Court, State v. Brewer , 2d Dist. Montgomery Nos. 22159 and 22160, 2008-Ohio-2715, appeal not accepted , 120 Ohio St.3d 1505, 2009-Ohio-361, 900 N.E.2d 622, and in three uncaptioned postconvic tion documents, filed in 2008 and 2009. {¶ 4} Between June 15 and July 18, 2011, Brewer mailed to the common pleas court, and the court f iled with the clerk of courts, seve n documents that were, like his 2008 and 2009 documents, uncaptioned and noncompliant with either the criminal or local rules of procedure. The court addressed these documents collectively and as a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 et seq. The court denied the petition on the alternative grounds that Brewer failed to satisfy the jurisd ictional requireme nts of R.C. 2953.21 et seq., and that his claims were barred under the doctrin e of res judicata. This appeal followed. Claims were reviewable under R.C. 2953.21 et seq.3 {¶ 5} In his uncaptioned documents, Brewer claimed that his 2003 indictment had been defective, that he had been denied a speedy trial in 2003, that his 2007 convictions were contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and that his trial couns el had been ineffective concerning his 2003 indictment, his speedy- trial rights, and his 2007 community-control violation. He did not design ate the statute or rule unde r which he sought relief. {¶ 6} R.C. 2953.21 et seq., governing the proceedings upon a postconviction petition, permit a collatera l attack upon a judgment of convi ction by one “who claims that there was such a denial or infringement of hi s rights [in the proceedings resulting in his conviction] as to render [his conviction] void or voidable unde r the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States.” R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a). The postconviction statutes provide “the exclusive remedy by which a pe rson may bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case.” R.C. 2953.21(J). Therefore, Brewer’s documents were reviewable under the standards provided by the postconviction

statutes. See State v. Schlee , 117 Ohio St.3d 153, 2008-Ohio-545, 882 N.E.2d 431, ¶ 12. Postconviction relief was properly denied {¶ 7} R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) prescribes the time for filing a postconviction petition, providing in relevant part as follows: [A] petition under division (A)(1) of this section shall be filed no later than one hundred eighty days after the date on which the trial tr anscript is filed in the court of appeals in the direct app eal of the judgment of conviction * * *. If no appeal is taken, * * * the petition shall be filed no la ter than one hundred eighty days after the expiration of the time for filing the appeal.4
R.C. 2953.23 closely circumscribes a court’s juri sdiction to entertain a late postconviction petition. The petitioner must show either that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which his petition depends, or that his claim is predicated upon a new or retrospectively applicable federal or state right recognized by the United States Supreme Court since th e expiration of the time prescribed in R.C. 2953.21(A)(2). R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a). And he must show “by cl ear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would ha ve found the petitioner guilty of the offense of which the petitioner wa s convicted.” R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b). {¶ 8} Brewer’s 2011 postconviction claims were directed against both his 2003 conviction, from which he took no direct a ppeal, and his 2007 convi ctions, which were affirmed in his direct appeal to this court in 2008. Thus, Brewer’s claims were filed well after the expiration of the time prescribed by R.C. 2953.21(A)(2). And the record does not demonstrate either that Brewer was unavoi dably prevented from discovering the facts underlying his claims, or that his claims we re predicated upon a new or retrospectively applicable federal or state right recognized by the United States Supreme Court since the time for filing the petition had expired. Because Brew er satisfied neither the time strictures of R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) nor the jurisdictiona l requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A), the postconviction statutes did not confer upon the common pleas court jurisdiction to entertain Brewer’s postconviction cl aims on their merits. Convictions were not void

. {¶ 9} A trial court retains jurisdiction to correct a void judgment. State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski , 111 Ohio St.3d 353, 2006-Ohio-5795, 856 N.E.2d 263, ¶ 18-19. But we5
rejected Brewer’s weight-of-t he-evidence challenge in hi s direct appeal from his 2007 judgment of conviction. Brewer , 2d Dist. Montgomery Nos. 22159 and 22160, 2008-Ohio-2715, at ¶ 10-22. And his speedy-trial and defective-indic tment claims, along with his challenges to trial c ounsel’s effectiveness concerning these matters, were forfeitable. See State v. Goldwire , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20838, 2005-Ohio-5784, ¶ 21-22 (holding that defendant “waived” his pos tconviction speedy-trial and ineff ective-counsel challenges by not raising them at trial or in his direct appeal); State v. Lowery , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24198, 2011-Ohio-2827, ¶ 17 (citing State v. Wozniak , 172 Ohio St. 517, 522-523, 178 N.E.2d 800 (1961), and Midling v. Perrini , 14 Ohio St.2d 106, 107, 236 N.E.2d 557 (1968), to hold that an allegedly defectiv e indictment could not be cha llenged in a late postconviction petition because the alleged defects did not deprive the trial cour t of subject-matter jurisdiction). Therefore, the claims, even if demonstrated, would not have rendered Brewer’s convictions void. We affirm. {¶ 10} Because the common pleas court had no jurisdiction to entertain Brewer’s postconviction claims, his petition was subject to dismissal. See R.C. 2953.21(C) and 2953.23(A). Accordingly, upon the authority of A pp.R. 12(A)(1)(a), we modify the judgment appealed from to reflect the dismissal of th e petition. And we affirm the judgment as modified.

. . . . . . . . . . FAIN, J., and FROELICH, J., concur.6 (Hon. Sylvia Sieve Hendon, First District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio)
Copies mailed to: Michele D. Phipps, Esq. William Brewer Hon. Mary Lynn Wiseman