Background
Troy A. Mason was prosecuted after using his brother’s identity in nine misdemeanor cases between 2014 and 2016. A Muskingum County grand jury indicted him on eight felony counts of tampering with records and twenty-five felony counts of forgery. After one count was dismissed, a jury convicted Mason on the remaining counts. The trial court merged allied offenses and imposed eight consecutive eighteen-month terms, totaling twelve years. The Fifth District affirmed the convictions on direct appeal in 2018.
In March 2026, Mason petitioned to vacate or set aside his convictions under R.C. 2953.21. He argued that the common pleas court’s felony jurisdiction had not been properly invoked because records from the underlying municipal-court cases were not presented to the grand jury. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing. It later denied Mason’s Civ.R. 56 motion for summary judgment, stating that the civil rule had no relevance to criminal cases.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. Mason’s postconviction petition was filed well beyond the statutory deadline, and he conceded that he had not satisfied the jurisdictional requirements for entertaining an untimely petition under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1). Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition, it was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing or permit additional reply briefing.
The court rejected Mason’s contention that his convictions were void. The common pleas court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the felony offenses and personal jurisdiction over Mason, and its jurisdiction was invoked when the county grand jury returned a felony indictment. The municipal-court records were evidence of the alleged offenses, not jurisdiction-conferring instruments that had to be separately presented to the grand jury.
The appellate court also clarified that summary judgment is not categorically unavailable in postconviction proceedings, which are civil in nature and expressly permit summary-judgment motions under R.C. 2953.21(E). Nevertheless, denial was proper because the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the untimely petition and because the petition had already been denied when Mason moved for summary judgment, leaving no pending claim to adjudicate.
Key Takeaways
- An Ohio trial court cannot entertain an untimely postconviction petition unless the petitioner satisfies a statutory exception under R.C. 2953.23(A).
- A felony indictment returned by the county grand jury invokes the common pleas court’s criminal jurisdiction; underlying evidentiary records need not separately confer jurisdiction.
- Summary judgment may be available in a postconviction proceeding, but it cannot revive an already resolved petition or overcome the court’s lack of jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the jurisdictional force of Ohio’s postconviction filing requirements. Characterizing an alleged defect as making a conviction “void” does not avoid those requirements when the trial court possessed subject-matter and personal jurisdiction.
It also corrects the trial court’s overly broad statement about Civ.R. 56 while affirming the result on alternative grounds. Practitioners may seek summary judgment in a pending postconviction proceeding, but only when the court has statutory authority to entertain the petition and a live claim remains before it.