State v. Crank
2016 Ohio 7203
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Chester Crank was convicted in July 2014 of aggravated murder (life without parole), aggravated arson (8 years) and related firearm specifications (consecutive terms), for a 2007 homicide and related offenses. Several charges merged with the murder count; the trial court found the arson arose from a separate animus.
- The State presented testimony from 17 witnesses and a recorded statement by Crank to his cousin; many witnesses testified Crank made multiple incriminating statements while drinking/intoxicated. Crank did not present evidence at trial.
- Crank appealed; this court affirmed his conviction and sentence in 2015.
- In April 2015 Crank filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (claims based on evidence dehors the record). The trial court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the petition on February 23, 2016.
- Crank appealed the denial, arguing (1) counsel failed to cross-examine a witness about timing of a confession and failed to show Crank was incarcerated at that time; (2) counsel failed to call witnesses who were present when alleged confessions were made; (3) counsel failed to call an expert on intoxication to rebut recorded statements; and (4) counsel failed to investigate an alibi/halfway-house placement.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Crank's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel failed to cross-examine Robert Race on timing of alleged confession / Race’s testimony should have been challenged by proving Crank was incarcerated | Race gave only a vague timeframe; record does not show Race’s testimony was false or dispositive and was cumulative to other witnesses | Race’s testimony referred to a time when Crank was allegedly incarcerated (2012–2013), so counsel should have impeached Race to undermine confession evidence | No ineffective assistance — timing claim speculative; Race’s testimony cumulative; no prejudice shown |
| Counsel failed to call unspecified witnesses who allegedly were present when Crank made statements | Trial counsel’s witness choices are tactical; petitioner must identify witnesses and expected testimony to merit relief | Counsel failed to call witnesses who would have supported Crank’s defense | Denied — Crank offered no affidavits or names or proffered testimony; speculative and insufficient to show prejudice |
| Counsel failed to call an expert to show intoxication rendered recorded confessions unreliable | Numerous witnesses already testified about Crank’s drinking; petitioner gave no showing how an expert would have changed outcome | An expert would have shown intoxication caused false confessions to multiple people | Denied — speculative; petitioner failed to show how expert testimony would have produced reasonable probability of a different result |
| Counsel failed to investigate alibi / that Crank was confined to a halfway house at time of offenses | Municipal docket shows Crank was placed under community control and completed TASC; no evidence he remained at halfway house during crimes | Docket entries (no explicit release date) suggest Crank may have been subject to roll-call and thus could not have committed offenses | Denied — record (docket entries) indicates completion of TASC; claim speculative and not supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (apply Strickland with deference; high bar to show prejudice)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (discussing the difficulty of prevailing on ineffective-assistance claims)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (res judicata applies to most post-conviction claims)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio articulation of Strickland framework)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of abuse of discretion)