[Cite as State v. Smith,
2025-Ohio-2914.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2025-02-012
: OPINION AND
- vs - JUDGMENT ENTRY
: 8/18/2025
JIMMY RAY SMITH, JR., :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 19 CR 35314
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Jimmy Ray Smith, Jr., pro se.
____________
OPINION
SIEBERT, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jimmy Ray Smith, Jr., appeals the decision of the Warren County
Court of Common Pleas denying his untimely petition for postconviction relief. However,
because Smith's convictions resulted from a guilty plea, he cannot meet the statutory
Warren CA2025-02-012
requirements set forth in R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's
decision.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On April 8, 2019, Smith was indicted for one count of rape, two counts of
gross sexual imposition, two counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or
performance, one count of endangering children, and one count of pandering sexual-
oriented material involving a minor. Although Smith initially entered a plea of not guilty,
he later pled guilty to all seven charges as set forth in the indictment. The trial court found
that Smith's plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and accepted the
plea. On October 10, 2019, Smith was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 25 years
to life. He filed a direct appeal, challenging both the sentence and the voluntariness of his
plea. This court overruled his assignments of error and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-3074, ¶ 1 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 3} On November 12, 2024, Smith filed a motion to set aside or vacate his
conviction and sentence. The trial court construed the motion as a petition for
postconviction relief and entered an order denying the petition. Smith now appeals,
raising one assignment of error for review.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 4} In his sole assignment of error, Smith argues the trial court erred by denying
him "due process of law." In support of this claim, he alleges a conflict of interest between
himself and his trial counsel and asserts that he was denied effective assistance of
counsel. Smith does not define or elaborate on the nature of the alleged conflict. Instead,
he contends that his counsel failed to request discovery or a bill of particulars prior to his
guilty plea. Smith further claims that the trial court was aware of the deficient
representation because he "complained about the issue."
-2-
Warren CA2025-02-012
{¶ 5} In reviewing postconviction relief proceedings, we generally apply an abuse
of discretion standard. State v. Payton, 2022-Ohio-2829, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.). However,
whether a trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain an untimely or successive
petition for postconviction relief is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v.
Lindsey,
2023-Ohio-1846, ¶ 8 (12th Dist.), citing State v. Apanovitch,
2018-Ohio-4744, ¶
24.
{¶ 6} A petition for postconviction relief must be filed no later than 365 days after
the date on which the trial transcript is filed with the court of appeals in the direct appeal,
or, if no direct appeal is taken, within 365 days after the expiration of time for filing such
an appeal. R.C. 2953.21(A)(2). Smith's petition was filed well beyond this statutory
deadline.
{¶ 7} A trial court may consider an untimely petition only if the petitioner
demonstrates either: (1) he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts
necessary to assert his claim for relief, or (2) he is invoking a new federal or state right
recognized by the United States Supreme Court that is retroactively applicable to persons
similarly situated. R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a); State v. McKelton, 2016-Ohio-3216, ¶ 7 (12th
Dist.).1 If the petitioner satisfies one of these "threshold requirements," the petitioner must
then offer clear and convincing evidence that, "but for constitutional error at trial, no
reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense of which the
petitioner was convicted." (Emphasis added) R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b);
McKelton at ¶ 8.
{¶ 8} In this case, we need not examine the threshold requirements, as Smith
cannot satisfy the second prong under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b). By pleading guilty, Smith
admitted to the substantive offenses. State v. Eberle, 2025-Ohio-2813, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.).
1. Smith does not claim to be asserting a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to his case.
-3-
Warren CA2025-02-012
Specifically, because Smith entered a guilty plea, he cannot demonstrate that, but for
constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty. This
court and others have consistently held that a guilty plea precludes such a claim. Id. at ¶
12; State v. Davis, 2022-Ohio-4767, ¶ 29 (6th Dist.); State v. Liles,
2022-Ohio-1713, ¶ 13
(3d Dist.); State v. Lewis,
2013-Ohio-1327, ¶ 8 (4th Dist.); State v. Clark,
2008-Ohio-194,
¶ 18 (5th Dist.); State v. Battigaglia,
2021-Ohio-1781, ¶ 17 (7th Dist.); State v. Moore,
2003-Ohio-4819, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.); State v. Demyan,
2012-Ohio-3634, ¶ 4 (9th Dist.); State
v. Hairston,
2013-Ohio-3834, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.); State v. Pough,
2004-Ohio-3933, ¶ 17 (11th
Dist.). In short—no trial ever occurred in this case—an "error" at a nonexistent trial is a
logical and legal impossibility.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 9} Because Smith's convictions resulted from a guilty plea, he cannot meet the
statutory requirements for filing an untimely petition for postconviction relief. Accordingly,
the trial court properly denied his petition, and Smith's sole assignment of error is
overruled.
{¶ 10} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.
JUDGMENT ENTRY
The assignment of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the
order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Warren County Court of Common
Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and
Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
-4-
Warren CA2025-02-012
Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.
____________________________________
/s/ Robin N. Piper, Presiding Judge
____________________________________
/s/ Mike Powell, Judge
____________________________________
/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge
-5-
