State v. Casey
113 N.E.3d 959
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Larry L. Casey, a Tier III sex offender, was indicted on failure-to-notify and multiple sexual-offense counts involving a minor; a jury convicted him of two counts of sexual battery, one rape, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, and failure to notify; the trial court classified him as a sexually violent predator and imposed an indefinite 25 years to life sentence.
- Casey directly appealed; this court affirmed his convictions and rejected ineffective-assistance and related claims in State v. Casey (Casey I).
- Casey then filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging trial counsel was ineffective (limited communication, failure to advise of life/SVP consequences, poor trial preparation/strategy, failure to advise re: plea, eliciting incarceration testimony, and failing to limit Evid.R. 404(B) evidence); affidavits accompanied the petition.
- The state moved to dismiss/for summary judgment, arguing res judicata and that the record contradicted Casey’s affidavits; the trial court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal from the dismissal, Casey raised three assignments: (1) the trial court erred by denying a hearing on postconviction relief; (2) the trial judge should have recused himself for alleged bias; and (3) appellate counsel was ineffective.
- The Twelfth District affirmed: most claims were barred by res judicata or contradicted by the record; no prejudice shown re: SVP/life advice or plea rejection; no entitlement to effective counsel on state postconviction proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by dismissing the postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing | Casey argued his affidavit and an independent counsel affidavit contained sufficient operative facts to warrant a hearing on ineffective assistance | State argued res judicata bars many claims and the record contradicts affidavit assertions | Court held dismissal proper: claims were largely barred by res judicata and the petition/affidavits failed to show substantive grounds for relief |
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to explain SVP/specification and life sentence prejudiced defendant | Casey said counsel did not inform him of SVP consequences or life exposure | State/record showed the court repeatedly advised Casey of charges, SVP specification, and potential life sentence | Court held no prejudice shown; advice occurred on the record, so Strickland prejudice prong not met |
| Whether counsel was ineffective in plea negotiations by failing to advise acceptance | Casey claimed counsel failed to advise whether to accept prosecutor’s 18-year recommendation plea | Record showed plea offer communicated, Casey rejected it, counsel and court discussed it on record | Court held no ineffective-assistance: Casey declined plea and could not show he would have accepted/that court would have approved |
| Whether appellate/postconviction counsel was ineffective | Casey contended appellate counsel failed to raise/argue specific ineffective-assistance points and was deficient in postconviction representation | State noted App.R. 26(B) is the proper vehicle for appellate-ineffectiveness claims and that there is no constitutional right to effective counsel in state postconviction proceedings | Court held appellate-ineffectiveness claims as to direct appeal improper here (App.R. 26(B)); also held ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel is not constitutionally recognized under Ohio law |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Perry v. Ohio, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- Calhoun v. United States, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (trial court may judge credibility of affidavits in postconviction proceedings)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (standards for ineffective assistance claims arising from plea negotiations)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (no constitutional right to counsel in state postconviction proceedings)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (limited federal-habeas exception for ineffective-assistance claims raised in initial-review collateral proceedings)