 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cataraso6/24/2002
or relief. In particular, Cataraso claims that he could not reasonably have been aware of the holdings from cases from the Twelfth and Tenth Appellate Districts until they became available to him at the prison library.
. Despite Cataraso's contention, holdings from other appellate districts do not constitute facts upon which he needed to rely in order to present his claim for relief. To the contrary, those cases illustrate that Cataraso could have timely appealed his original sentence to this court on the same grounds that the appellants in Ward and Hood advanced, despite the lack of persuasive or controlling precedent available to those appellants. Thus, we find that the exception provided in R.C. 2953.23(A) does not apply in this case to excuse Cataraso from the one hundred eighty-day filing deadline.
. In sum, we find that the trial court properly treated Cataraso's motion as a petition for post-conviction relief and properly dismissed the petition because Cataraso did not timely file it. Thus, we overrule Cataraso's second assignment of error. We find his first assignment of error moot, and decline to address it pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|