State v. Conway
2019 Ohio 2260
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2001 James T. Conway III murdered Andrew Dotson after earlier involvement in a shooting; Conway was convicted of aggravated murder and related offenses and sentenced to death in 2003; Ohio Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Conway filed multiple post-conviction petitions under R.C. 2953.21; this opinion concerns his third, successive petition filed in 2013 and amended in 2016.
- The successive petition raised (1) a facial and as-applied challenge to the statutory standard for successive petitions (R.C. 2953.23(A)), (2) multiple ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims based largely on informant/transcript material, (3) requests for discovery and funding for experts, and (4) a claim of ineffective assistance by his first post-conviction counsel.
- The trial court dismissed the petition as barred by res judicata and for failure to satisfy the jurisdictional "gateway" for successive petitions under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) (unavoidable prevention from discovery plus clear-and-convincing proof of outcome-determinative constitutional error).
- On appeal the Tenth District reviewed the jurisdictional issue de novo and affirmed, holding Conway failed both to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts he relied on and failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have convicted or found him death-eligible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Conway) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Constitutionality of R.C. 2953.23(A)'s clear-and-convincing burden | Statute is constitutional and applicable; res judicata and statutory limits bar successive petitions | Statute's burden is facially and as-applied unconstitutional (deprives meaningful review) | Court rejected Conway's challenge, adopting prior Tenth Dist. precedent; statute upheld |
| 2. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (multiple alleged omissions and failures to impeach witnesses) | Evidence and transcripts Conway cites were within his knowledge or otherwise cumulative; alleged inconsistencies are minor and would not change outcome | Trial counsel failed to properly suppress or impeach informant (Trent) and other witnesses; new transcripts show prejudice | Court found Conway could not show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts (most were within his knowledge) and lacked clear-and-convincing evidence of outcome-determinative prejudice; claims barred by res judicata or meritless |
| 3. Right to discovery in post-conviction proceedings / denial of discovery motions | Discovery and good-cause authority in amended R.C. 2953.21 support access; Eighth and Due Process protections warrant discovery | Statutory framework limits discovery for successive petitions; constitutional right to discovery in post-conviction proceedings is not recognized | Court held no constitutional right to discovery in post-conviction proceedings, and statutory discovery authorizes only initial timely petitions (not successive petitions like Conway's) |
| 4. Funding for experts and ineffective assistance of prior post-conviction counsel | Funding required to develop claims; prior post-conviction counsel was ineffective, entitling Conway to relief | Trial court abused discretion by denying funding; Sixth Amendment requires effective post-conviction assistance | Court held no constitutional right to appointment of experts in post-conviction proceedings and R.C. 2953.21 disclaims relief based on ineffectiveness of post-conviction counsel; claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (no constitutional right to counsel in collateral post-conviction proceedings)
- State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (postconviction review is a narrow collateral remedy; res judicata bars claims that could have been raised earlier)
- State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (Ohio Supreme Court decision on Conway's direct appeal affirming convictions and death sentence)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (res judicata is applicable in postconviction proceedings)