2022 Ohio 3119
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Stevie L. Black was convicted after a jury trial of rape and kidnapping arising from an incident on September 25, 2018; robbery counts were dismissed by the jury. He was sentenced to 11 years and classified a Tier III sex offender.
- Black appealed and the Tenth District affirmed; the Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction. The trial transcript was filed on November 6, 2019.
- On February 8, 2022, Black filed a pro se petition to vacate his convictions alleging (a) ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and (b) Brady violations based on undisclosed surveillance/video/audio evidence. The petition was filed more than 365 days after the trial transcript was filed.
- The state moved to dismiss as untimely and the trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Black appealed that denial.
- The Tenth District held the petition untimely under R.C. 2953.21/2953.23 and found Black failed to show he was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering the facts supporting his claims; it also rejected his Brady and ineffective-assistance arguments on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Black) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Did the trial court err by denying the postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing? | Petition was untimely under R.C. 2953.21; R.C. 2953.23 exceptions not met so court lacked jurisdiction. | Black was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering exculpatory facts (due to withholding and counsel failure), so exceptions apply and a hearing was required. | Affirmed. Petition untimely; Black failed to show newly discovered facts or unavoidable prevention under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), so no jurisdiction and no hearing required. |
| 2) Did the prosecution violate Brady by withholding surveillance/video/audio evidence? | No Brady violation because Black provided no evidence such recordings existed or were in the State's possession. | State withheld surveillance cameras and laptop recordings that would show consent and exculpate Black. | Rejected. Allegations unsupported; record shows no proof such videos existed or were obtained by police, so no suppression established. |
| 3) Was Black denied effective assistance of counsel at trial? | Black failed to present affidavits or operative facts showing deficient performance and prejudice; self-serving affidavit insufficient. | Trial counsel failed to investigate, obtain/subpoena surveillance, call witnesses, and advised Black not to testify, causing prejudice. | Rejected. Black submitted only his own affidavit, identified no witness affidavits, and did not show a reasonable probability of a different outcome; no basis for an evidentiary hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (suppression of favorable evidence violates due process)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (elements of a true Brady violation)
- State v. Apanovitch, 155 Ohio St.3d 358 (failure to satisfy R.C. 2953.23 deprives court of jurisdiction over untimely postconviction petitions)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (factors for assessing credibility of affidavits in postconviction proceedings)
- State v. Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48 (following Brady)
- State v. Coleman, 85 Ohio St.3d 129 (ineffective-assistance claims based on facts not in the record should be pursued via postconviction relief)
- State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 (petitioner must submit evidentiary documents with operative facts to warrant a hearing)