Background
Dee Carter was convicted by a jury of rape in 2001 and received a mandatory five-year prison sentence. The Second District affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. Carter then filed two postconviction petitions, both of which were denied; the appellate court affirmed the denial of the second petition in 2003.
In January 2025, Carter filed a motion that the Clark County Common Pleas Court construed as another petition for postconviction relief. The court denied it as untimely, barred by res judicata, and based in part on evidence barred by Ohio’s rape-shield statute. After appealing that ruling, Carter filed a separate motion in the trial court seeking to correct the record and add affidavits under App.R. 9(C).
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. Carter’s appellate brief did not identify an assignment of error or make an argument directed to the judgment denying his successive postconviction petition. Although the court construed his pro se brief as challenging the trial court’s handling of an App.R. 9(C) statement, that issue did not concern the judgment on appeal.
The court could not review the later-filed record-correction motion because the trial court had not ruled on it and because the motion was filed after Carter noticed his appeal. The court declined to construct an argument for Carter and affirmed the denial of postconviction relief.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se appellant must identify alleged error and support it with argument, record citations, and legal authority.
- An appellate court generally cannot review matters occurring after the notice of appeal or a motion on which the trial court has not ruled.
- The court did not reach the merits of Carter’s postconviction claims because his brief failed to challenge the appealed judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that appellate review is confined to the judgment properly before the court. Even when an appellate court liberally construes a pro se filing, it need not formulate arguments that the appellant has not made.