Otte v. State
2017 Ohio 7568
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Gary Otte was convicted of four counts of aggravated murder (with death specifications) and sentenced to death; convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and subsequent postconviction and habeas attempts failed.
- Otte filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in state common pleas court, arguing Ohio's death-penalty statute violates the Eighth Amendment as applied to offenders who were under 21 at the time of their capital offenses.
- The State moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the trial court dismissed, holding declaratory relief cannot be used to collaterally attack a criminal conviction or sentence and that postconviction statute provides the exclusive remedy.
- Otte relied on evolving science about youth brain development and on Kentucky v. Bredhold (a state trial-court decision extending Roper to ages under 21) to argue his claim was newly ripe and not subject to postconviction limits.
- The court held R.C. 2953.21 et seq. (postconviction relief) is the exclusive collateral-review mechanism; Bredhold is not binding and the U.S. Supreme Court has not extended Roper to ages 18–20, so Otte could not use declaratory judgment to bypass statutory requirements for successive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a declaratory-judgment action may be used to challenge a death sentence as cruel and unusual punishment | Otte: his as-applied Eighth Amendment claim (death for offenders under 21) is a justiciable controversy and not cognizable under postconviction rules | State: declaratory relief may not be used to collaterally attack convictions or sentences; postconviction statute is exclusive remedy | Declaratory judgment is not a proper vehicle; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the postconviction statute bars Otte’s claim because it is successive or untimely | Otte: new science and Bredhold created a newly ripe claim not previously available | State: R.C. 2953.23 governs successive petitions and requires a new Supreme Court right or unavoidably undiscovered facts; Bredhold is nonbinding | Otte cannot satisfy statutory criteria; postconviction framework controls |
| Whether state-court decisions like Bredhold can create retroactive rights for postconviction relief | Otte: Bredhold supports extending Roper’s reasoning to ages under 21 | State: state trial-court decisions are not binding on Ohio courts and U.S. Supreme Court has not extended Roper | Bredhold does not create a binding new right for Ohio; federal and Ohio precedent control |
| Whether dismissal denies access to courts | Otte: declaratory dismissal would deny meaningful access because postconviction route is inadequate | State: Otte has previously filed postconviction and habeas petitions and other proceedings; remedies remain available | Court finds Otte not denied access; dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Otte, 74 Ohio St.3d 555, 660 N.E.2d 711 (affirming convictions and death sentence)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (juveniles under 18 categorically ineligible for death penalty; evolving-standards analysis)
- Lingo v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 427, 7 N.E.3d 1188 (declaratory judgment is not a proper vehicle to challenge criminal sentences)
- Burger Brewing Co. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 34 Ohio St.2d 93, 296 N.E.2d 261 (elements for declaratory judgment jurisdiction)
- Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (Eighth Amendment interpreted by evolving standards of decency)