Court Opinion

ID: 9394204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 17:08:48.428725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:57.899164
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. El-Amin, 2023-Ohio-1597.]

                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio                                          Court of Appeals No. L-22-1158

        Appellee                                       Trial Court No. CR0200303244

v.

Hisham G. El-Amin                                      DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellant                                      Decided: May 12, 2023

                                                *****

        Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
        Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        Neil S. McElroy, for appellant.

                                                *****
        SULEK, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Hisham El-Amin, appeals the June 17, 2022 judgment of the

Lucas County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for postconviction relief.

Because the petition was untimely, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                              I. Background

        {¶ 2} A recitation of the relevant facts is as follows. In July 2005, a jury convicted

El-Amin of two counts of rape, and the trial court subsequently imposed a term of 10
years in prison on each count, to be served consecutively. On direct appeal, this court

affirmed the jury’s verdicts but remanded for resentencing upon finding that the trial

court, prior to imposing a consecutive sentence, failed to make the necessary additional

findings under State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470,

excising R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.41(A). State v. El-Amin, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-

05-1286, 2007-Ohio-3949. In 2011, the section was revived by the Ohio legislature.

       {¶ 3} On November 7, 2008, El-Amin filed an untimely application to reopen his

appeal arguing appellate counsel ineffectively failed to raise the issue of trial counsel’s

failure to seek enforcement of the non-prosecution agreement. The application was

denied. State v. El-Amin, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-05-1286 (Nov. 21, 2008).

       {¶ 4} In the meantime, and prior to El-Amin’s resentencing, the Ohio Supreme

Court held that a final and appealable judgment entry must contain whether the

conviction was based on a “plea, verdict, or finding by the court.” State v. Baker, 119

Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, ¶ 19. For a time, this court interpreted

Baker as voiding non-compliant judgment entries, and concluding that direct appeals

from such entries were nullity and void. See, e.g., State v. Tuggle, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-

09-1317, 2010-Ohio-4162. El-Amin filed motions requesting that the trial court issue a

Baker compliant judgment entry; the entry was filed on November 16, 2010. While El-

Amin’s appeal from the judgment was pending in this court, the Supreme Court of Ohio

decided State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, holding

that a judgment entry issued with the sole purpose of complying with Baker, was not a

2.
final order from which a new appeal could be taken. El-Amin’s appeal was ultimately

dismissed.

          {¶ 5} With his Baker appeal pending, on June 13, 2011, El-Amin filed a petition

for post-conviction relief raising five claims.1 El-Amin argued actual innocence, that he

was denied his right to present defenses, that his judgment was void or voidable because

the post-conviction process is not constitutionally adequate, that counsel was ineffective

in failing to enforce the non-prosecution agreement and failing to request a mistrial after

learning that jurors did not want to be near El-Amin in courthouse public areas because

he made them nervous, and that he was denied his right to have the case litigated in a

public courtroom and a record made of all proceedings. El-Amin supported his petition

with the affidavit of his wife, Maria El-Amin, who claimed that defense counsel refused

to subpoena material witnesses. The state opposed the petition.

          {¶ 6} After nearly ten years of inactivity, in the Spring of 2021 the parties filed

sentencing memoranda pursuant to this court’s 2007 remand for resentencing. On June

25, 2021, El-Amin was resentenced to the same 20-year, consecutive sentence. El-Amin

appealed and we affirmed the trial court’s judgment. State v. El-Amin, 6th Dist. Lucas

No. L-21-1130, 2021-Ohio-4342.

          {¶ 7} The trial court also addressed El-Amin’s 2005 motion for a new trial arguing

that the state breached the non-prosecution agreement. On August 25, 2021, the court

denied the motion finding that although the agreement “may have been discussed,” it was

1
    The petition specifically lists claims one, two, four, five, and six but omits a third claim.

3.
never made a part of the record. Further, the deal as described was conditioned on both

El-Amin and the victim submitting to a polygraph examination. The victim did not take a

polygraph; thus, no deal was reached. El-Amin appealed the judgment. This court held

that any arguments relating to the alleged breach were barred by res judicata as the issue

could have been raised on direct appeal. State v. El-Amin, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-21-

1175, 2022-Ohio-2905.

       {¶ 8} On June 17, 2022, the trial court denied El-Amin’s petition for

postconviction relief. The court found that the motion was untimely when it was filed in

2011, and that the arguments were barred by res judicata. This appeal followed.

                                   II. Assignments of Error

       {¶ 9} El-Amin raises the following three assignments of error:

                 Assignment of Error no. 1: The trial court erred as a matter of law

       when it denied, on the basis of res judicata, Mr. El-Amin’s petition for post-

       conviction relief without holding a hearing.

                 Assignment of Error no. 2: The trial court erred as a matter of law

       when it denied as untimely Mr. El-Amin’s petition for post-conviction

       relief.

                 Assignment of Error no. 3: The trial court abused its discretion when

       it denied Mr. El-Amin’s request for a hearing on his petition for post-

       conviction relief.

4.
                                        III. Discussion

       {¶ 10} A trial court’s decision on a petition for postconviction relief is reviewed

for an abuse of discretion. State v. Weaver, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4371, ---

N.E.3d ---, ¶ 25-29. An abuse or discretion connotes an unreasonable, arbitrary or

unconscionable attitude of the trial court. Id. at ¶ 24, quoting State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio

St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, ¶ 60.

       {¶ 11} The court will first address El-Amin’s second assignment of error as it is

dispositive. El-Amin claims that because there was no final judgment of conviction until

his June 2021 resentencing, the filing of the petition was well within the time limit set

forth in R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) and the court erred by dismissing on this basis. The state

counters that this court’s 2007 remand pursuant to Foster did not act to “restart the clock”

for requesting postconviction relief and the petition was required to be filed within the

time period for filing the transcripts in the direct appeal.

       {¶ 12} R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a) relevantly provides: “Except as otherwise provided

in section 2953.23 of the Revised Code, a petition under division (A)(1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iii)

of this section shall be filed no later than three hundred sixty-five days after the date on

which the trial transcript is filed in the court of appeals in the direct appeal of the

judgment of conviction or adjudication.” On the date El-Amin’s petition was filed, the

statute required that it be filed within 180 days.

5.
       {¶ 13} The question posed is whether this court’s 2007 Foster remand reset the

time period from which El-Amin could request postconviction relief. Ohio courts have

consistently held that it does not.

       {¶ 14} Considering similar facts, in State v. O’Neal, 9th Dist. Medina No.

08CA0028-M, 2008-Ohio-6572, the court concluded that the time limit for filing a

postconviction relief motion begins to run from the original appeal from the conviction,

not following a resentencing pursuant to Foster. Id. at ¶ 12. The court observed that the

plain language of R.C. 2953.21 evidences no connection between the status of the

postconviction relief petition and the status of the appeal as the time begins to run even in

instances where no appeal has been filed. Id. at ¶ 12-13, citing State v. Casalicchio, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89555, 2008-Ohio-2362, ¶ 24-26.

       {¶ 15} The court in State v. Haschenburger, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 08-MA-223,

2009-Ohio-6527, likewise concluded that a reversal of a sentence pursuant to Foster does

not nullify or void the judgment and, thus, does not extend the time for filing a petition

for postconviction relief. Id. at ¶ 27. It further reasoned:

              If we were to determine that the time for filing a defendant’s petition

       for postconviction relief did not begin to run until the last of the direct

       appeals from the trial court’s sentence[s], the time for filing postconvictions

       petitions would be extended well beyond the time limits set forth in R.C.

       2953.21(A)(2) to an indeterminate time in the future. Such a finding would

6.
      render the time requirement meaningless and defeat the intent of the

      legislature in setting forth such a time requirement.

Id., citing State v. Laws, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-283, 2004-Ohio-6446, ¶ 6. See

State v. Dawson, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2012-CA-54, 2013-Ohio-1817; State v. Piesciuk,

12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-10-251, 2010-Ohio-3136; State v. Jackson, 11th Dist.

Trumbull No. 2013-T-0103, 2015-Ohio-7.

      {¶ 16} In the present case, the trial transcripts in El-Amin’s original appeal were

filed on April 14, 2006. Adding 180 days, the petition was due on October 11, 2006. El-

Amin’s postconviction petition was not filed until June 13, 2011. Thus, El-Amin’s

petition was untimely.

      {¶ 17} Under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), a court may entertain an untimely petition

where both of the following apply:

             (a) Either the petitioner shows that the petitioner was unavoidably

      prevented from discovery of the facts upon which the petitioner must rely

      to present the claim for relief, or, subsequent to the period prescribed in

      division (A)(2) of section 2953.21 of the Revised Code or to the filing of an

      earlier petition, the United States Supreme Court recognized a new federal

      or state right that applies retroactively to persons in the petitioner’s

      situation, and the petition asserts a claim based on that right.

             (b) The petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence that, but

      for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found

7.
       the petitioner guilty of the offense of which the petitioner was convicted or,

       if the claim challenges a sentence of death that, but for constitutional error

       at the sentencing hearing, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

       petitioner eligible for the death sentence.

       {¶ 18} “[A] petitioner’s failure to satisfy R.C. 2953.23(A) deprives a trial court of

jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of an untimely or successive postconviction petition.”

State v. Apanovitch, 155 Ohio St.3d 358, 2018-Ohio-4744, 121 N.E.3d 351, ¶ 36.

       {¶ 19} El-Amin provides no persuasive arguments supporting the untimely filing

of his petition. There is no indication that the United States Supreme Court recognized a

new federal or state right that retroactively applies to El-Amin. Further, El-Amin has not

demonstrated that he was unavoidably prevented from discovery of the facts in his

petition upon which he relied.

       {¶ 20} A review Maria El-Amin’s affidavit demonstrates that any arguments

relating to the non-prosecution agreement were known to El-Amin as he participated in

the discussions. Further, El-Amin was aware of witnesses he claims counsel was

ineffective in failing to call during trial. Finally, contrary to Maria El-Amin’s claim in

her affidavit, the alleged post-trial statements made by the victim to El-Amin’s

granddaughter and another individual regarding being coerced by family members to lie

are not supported by affidavits. It is also unclear how long after trial the alleged

statements were made.

8.
         {¶ 21} Upon review, the court concludes that El-Amin’s petition for

postconviction relief was untimely and he failed to satisfy the requirements of R.C.

2953.23(A)(1); thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the

petition. El-Amin’s second assignment of error is found not well-taken and his first and

third assignments of error are moot.

                                          IV. Conclusion

         {¶ 22} For the foregoing reasons, the June 17, 2022 judgment of the Lucas County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, El-Amin is ordered to pay

the costs of this appeal.

                                                                         Judgment affirmed.

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J.                             ____________________________
                                                         JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, P.J.
                                                 ____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, J.                                     JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                                 ____________________________
                                                         JUDGE

          This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
     Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
          version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                   http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

9.