State v. Conway, 2019 Ohio 382

Background

In 2003 a jury convicted James T. Conway III of aggravated murder (death-penalty specification), attempted murder, and a weapons disability; the jury recommended death and the trial court sentenced him to death.
Conway's convictions and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and in related proceedings; he also pursued federal habeas litigation that produced discovery used in this successive state postconviction petition.
Conway filed a successive petition for postconviction relief in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in 2016 asserting numerous grounds (Brady, ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and mitigation, conflicted counsel, discovery violations, Hurst challenge, international law claims, cumulative error, etc.).
The trial court dismissed the successive petition for lack of jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), concluding Conway failed to satisfy the statute’s gatekeeping requirements; Conway appealed raising twelve assignments of error.
The Tenth District applied de novo review of the jurisdictional question and affirmed, holding Conway did not show the newly discovered evidence or legal developments met the statute’s requirements or clear-and-convincing prejudice standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Conway)	Held
Constitutionality of R.C. 2953.23(A)’s clear-and-convincing gatekeeping standard	Statute is constitutional and is binding; applies to successive petitions to preserve finality	Statute is facially and as-applied unconstitutional because clear-and-convincing standard blocks review of meritorious constitutional claims	Court: statute constitutional; Conway’s as-applied challenge fails because he didn’t identify facts showing entitlement to relief or meet the statutory standard
Brady and discovery claims (suppression of impeachment/exculpatory evidence)	No Brady violation: disclosed materials or alleged omissions were cumulative, nonexculpatory, or consistent with trial testimony	Withheld reports and witness statements would have impeached key witnesses and undermined confidence in verdict	Court: dismissal affirmed — evidence was not materially inconsistent or exculpatory and did not meet prejudice standard under Brady
Ineffective assistance of trial and mitigation counsel (multiple subclaims)	Many claims barred by res judicata or were investigated strategically; no new evidence showing prejudice by clear and convincing evidence	Counsel failed to investigate witnesses, experts, and mitigation; various omissions deprived Conway of effective assistance	Court: claims either barred by res judicata or insufficient to show deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland; dismissal affirmed
Hurst and sentencing challenge to Ohio death-penalty scheme	State: Hurst does not invalidate Ohio’s process as interpreted by Ohio Supreme Court	Conway: Hurst requires vacatur of death sentence or resentencing	Court: bound by State v. Mason concluding Hurst does not apply to Ohio’s sentencing scheme; claim rejected

Key Cases Cited

Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (conflict-of-interest standard for multiple representation)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (suppression of favorable evidence violates due process)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (materiality standard for impeachment evidence; "reasonable probability")
State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (postconviction relief is a narrow collateral remedy; res judicata applies)
State v. Gillard, 64 Ohio St.3d 304 (trial court duty to inquire into possible counsel conflicts)
State v. Johnson, 24 Ohio St.3d 87 (failure to present mitigation evidence can be tactical and not necessarily ineffective assistance)
State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 (Ohio Supreme Court decision affirming conviction and sentence)
State v. Mason, 153 Ohio St.3d 476 (Ohio Supreme Court holding that Hurst does not render Ohio's sentencing scheme unconstitutional)