State v. Boles
2017 Ohio 786
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Patrick Boles was indicted for eight rapes (four alleged in 1991, four in 1992); a jury convicted him of the four 1991 counts and acquitted the 1992 counts; sentence 15–45 years.
- Direct appeal and Ohio Supreme Court jurisdiction were unsuccessful; appellate counsel later declined reopening as untimely under App.R. 26(B).
- Boles filed a federal habeas petition; district court stayed it pending exhaustion of state postconviction remedies for ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims.
- Boles filed a timely PCR petition later dismissed as untimely under R.C. 2953.23; he did not appeal that denial but later filed a motion for reconsideration and/or a successive PCR petition arguing Martinez/Trevino excuse because appellate/postconviction counsel was absent or ineffective.
- Trial court treated the filing as a successive PCR petition, denied it under res judicata and R.C. 2953.23, and declined to apply Martinez/Trevino; Boles appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by refusing reconsideration of first PCR denial | Trial court should reconsider denial | Boles sought reconsideration instead of appealing; motion to reconsider is invalid | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — motion to reconsider a final PCR judgment is a nullity |
| Whether successive PCR petition should be barred by res judicata | State: claim was or could have been raised earlier; first PCR denial not appealed | Boles: claim depends on evidence dehors the record (trial counsel failed to investigate/prepare a witness) so not ripe for direct appeal | Court: trial court erred to the extent it held claim could have been raised on direct appeal, but successive petition is barred by res judicata because same claim was raised in the first PCR petition which Boles did not appeal |
| Whether Martinez/Trevino excuse procedural bars and permit merits review of successive PCR | Boles: Martinez/Trevino allow bypassing state procedural bars where initial postconviction counsel was absent/ineffective | State: Martinez/Trevino are federal habeas equitable doctrines limited to initial-review collateral proceedings, not successive state PCRs | Held: Martinez/Trevino do not apply to successive PCR petitions; trial court did not abuse discretion denying relief under R.C. 2953.23 |
| Whether Boles was entitled to counsel or effective counsel in PCR proceedings | Boles: appellate/postconviction counsel’s failure to file PCR should not preclude relief | State: no federal constitutional right to counsel in state postconviction proceedings | Held: No constitutional right to counsel or effective assistance in state PCRs; Coleman/Finley/Crowder control, so Martinez/Trevino do not create such a right in successive proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (narrowly allows ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims to overcome federal procedural default when initial-review collateral counsel was absent or ineffective)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (extends Martinez in certain state frameworks where direct appeal is unlikely to develop IATC claims)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (no constitutional right to effective assistance in state postconviction proceedings; attorney error in such proceedings generally not "cause" to excuse default)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (right to appointed counsel extends to first appeal of right and no further)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (PCR is a collateral civil attack and not a second occasion to relitigate the conviction)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal)
- State v. Crowder, 60 Ohio St.3d 151 (1991) (no state or federal constitutional right to counsel in postconviction proceedings)