Francis v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution, 1:16-cv-00606

Background

Petitioner James Francis pleaded guilty to four counts of rape of a child under ten after plea negotiations; age specification dismissed and statutorily applicable sentence for each count was 10 years to life, imposed consecutively because there were two victims.
Francis later filed an Ohio postconviction petition (R.C. § 2953.21) alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel promised a flat 10-year sentence.
The trial court denied relief, finding the affidavits contradicted the recorded plea/sentencing proceedings and citing Ohio law distinguishing claims provable on the record from those requiring extrarecord evidence.
The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed (Francis I and after remand Francis II), applying Strickland and finding the postconviction judge had considered the affidavits but that they were contradicted by the plea colloquy.
On federal habeas review, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal, concluding the state courts decided the federal Strickland claim on the merits and were entitled to AEDPA deference; Francis objected on multiple grounds.
The Magistrate Judge overruled Francis’s objections, reaffirmed that the state courts adjudicated the Strickland claim on the merits, and recommended dismissal with prejudice and denial of a COA.

Issues

Issue	Francis's Argument	Warden's Argument	Held
Whether state courts adjudicated Francis's ineffective-assistance claim on the merits	Postconviction court ignored/excluded the affidavits and therefore did not decide the federal claim on the merits	State courts considered the affidavits and decided the Strickland claim on the merits	State decisions were on the merits; AEDPA deference applies
Whether postconviction court mischaracterized claim as Boykin (involuntary plea) rather than Strickland (ineffective assistance)	Court reframed claim as Boykin, so AEDPA deference shouldn't apply to the unaddressed Strickland claim	State courts cited Strickland and Bradley and adjudicated the ineffective-assistance claim	Court found no confusion; state courts adjudicated Strickland claim
Whether state courts unreasonably determined factual issues by not considering extrarecord affidavits	Affidavits outside the record were ignored, making state factual findings unreasonable	Trial and appellate courts did consider affidavits and found them contradicted by the plea colloquy	Factual determinations were reasonable; affidavit credibility resolved against Francis
Whether Francis satisfied Strickland prejudice and is entitled to habeas relief	Counsel’s alleged promise of 10 years and counsel’s youth/inexperience made it reasonable to reject the plea and show prejudice	Record shows life-without-parole exposure on conviction; no evidence explaining why rejecting the plea was rational; presumption of counsel competence	No prejudice shown; habeas relief denied; COA denied

Key Cases Cited

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (plea voluntariness standards)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
McAdoo v. Elo, 365 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2004) (distinguishing Boykin and Strickland-type claims about plea misinformation)
Nichols v. Heidle, 725 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2013) (AEDPA and habeas standards for ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (Ohio application of Strickland)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata and postconviction procedure)
State v. Cheren, 73 Ohio St.3d 137 (Ohio 1995) (procedural rules for raising ineffective-assistance claims)