State v. Adams
2017 Ohio 519
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jason M. Adams was convicted by a Lawrence County jury of complicity to aggravated robbery and sentenced to nine years on December 23, 2014. Co-defendants pleaded guilty; Adams went to trial and testified in his own defense.
- The State presented surveillance video, phone records, recorded statements, witness testimony (including a co-defendant), store video of toy gun purchases, and injury photos. The jury returned guilty verdicts.
- While Adams’s direct appeal was pending, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on defense counsel’s alleged failure to use investigator memoranda and impeach key witnesses/detective.
- The trial court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing and without separate, detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Adams appealed that dismissal.
- The Fourth District affirmed, holding Adams’s claims were barred by res judicata because the alleged ineffective-assistance matters were known and available during trial/direct appeal and thus should have been raised on direct appeal.
- Judge Harsha dissented, arguing Keeley precludes applying res judicata while a direct appeal is pending and that dismissal without findings or a hearing was error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Adams) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing under R.C. 2953.21(C) | Counsel was ineffective for not using investigator memoranda and not impeaching detective/co-defendant; these facts warranted an evidentiary hearing | Claims were barred by res judicata because the evidence and complaints were known and available during trial/direct appeal | Court: Denial of hearing affirmed — claims barred by res judicata; no substantive grounds shown |
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law when dismissing the petition | Trial court’s entry was cursory and failed to explain why Adams’s attachments lacked credibility or why counsel’s conduct was trial strategy | Trial court’s summary finding that counsel’s choices were trial strategy was adequate given res judicata bar; any deficiency was not prejudicial | Court: No reversible error — dismissal stands and findings (as entered) are sufficient in light of res judicata determination |
| Proper application of res judicata when a post-conviction petition is filed while a direct appeal is pending | Res judicata should not apply because petition raised evidence outside the trial record and an appeal was pending (relying on Keeley) | Res judicata applies because Adams knew of the claims and the investigator materials were available pretrial/direct appeal | Court: Applied res judicata and barred the claims; distinguished Keeley by analogy to prior Fourth District decisions |
| Standard for entitlement to a post-conviction evidentiary hearing | A hearing is required if petitioner produces competent, relevant, material evidence outside the record showing constitutional violation and prejudice | Hearing not required unless petition and record show entitlement; here record and petition did not meet the Calhoun/In re B.C.S. threshold | Court: Calhoun/In re B.C.S. standard not met; no hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Gondor v. State, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (Ohio 2006) (standard for appellate review of post-conviction dismissal)
- Calhoun v. State, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (post-conviction hearing not automatic; petitioner must show substantive grounds)
- Perry v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata doctrine bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- Szefcyk v. State, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (limits on res judicata in criminal appeals)
- State v. Keeley, 989 N.E.2d 80 (4th Dist. 2013) (holding res judicata should not be invoked while a direct appeal is pending)