State v. Braden
2018 Ohio 1807
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 1998 David Braden was convicted of two counts of aggravated murder; jury recommended death on each count and the trial court sentenced him to death in 1999. The Ohio Supreme Court previously affirmed in State v. Braden, 98 Ohio St.3d 354 (2003).
- In January 2017 Braden filed a motion for leave to file a motion for a new mitigation trial, relying on Hurst v. Florida, U.S. , 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016), arguing Ohio’s death-penalty scheme was unconstitutional because it permits a judicial finding of facts based on a jury recommendation.
- The trial court denied relief, finding the motion untimely, barred by res judicata, and concluding Hurst did not require a new mitigation hearing; the court nonetheless granted leave to file in a footnote.
- Braden appealed, raising (1) the trial court erred by not determining whether he was unavoidably prevented from filing within Crim.R. 33(B)’s 14-day rule, and (2) Hurst established his sentence was unconstitutional.
- The appellate court reviewed the res judicata bar de novo and held that res judicata precluded Braden’s motion because he could have raised the constitutional arguments earlier (even if controlling precedent at the time ran contrary).
- The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the new-mitigation-motion and overruled both assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Braden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying leave without finding Braden was "unavoidably prevented" from filing within 14 days under Crim.R. 33(B) | Trial court’s order was proper; motion untimely and res judicata applies | Trial court failed to apply Crim.R. 33(B)’s exception and thus erred | Overruled — court noted leave was granted in a footnote and denied this claim |
| Whether Hurst v. Florida renders Braden’s death sentence unconstitutional and warrants a new mitigation/penalty hearing | The motion is untimely and, in any event, the claim is barred by res judicata; petition should be viewed as post-conviction relief | Hurst announced legal principles that invalidate Ohio’s sentencing procedure and entitle Braden to a new mitigation trial | Denied — res judicata bars the claim because Braden could have raised equivalent arguments on direct appeal; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (establishes res judicata rule barring claims raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (res judicata bars postconviction relief for issues that could have been appealed, even if later case law changes)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (a change in law does not defeat res judicata application)
- Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981) (final judgments have preclusive effect even if later decisions cast doubt on their correctness)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016) (announced jury-finding requirements for death-penalty factfinding relied on by Braden)