State v. Crosby
2017 Ohio 8349
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Donzelle Crosby was convicted in Lorain County; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Crosby filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief claiming conflicts of interest and ineffective assistance tied to attorney Jack Bradley’s withdrawal to (allegedly) represent a co-defendant who later testified against Crosby.
- Crosby alleged trial counsel failed to raise the conflict, the State committed due-process/prosecutorial-misconduct by negotiating a plea with the co-defendant, and the trial court should have ordered a conflict hearing.
- The trial transcript in the direct appeal was filed with the court of appeals on March 16, 2015; R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) (as amended March 23, 2015) gave a 365-day filing window for post-conviction petitions.
- Crosby’s petition was filed on March 16, 2016 — one day after the March 15, 2016 deadline (2016 being a leap year) — and he did not assert any statutory grounds to excuse the late filing.
- The trial court denied the petition as untimely; the appellate court affirmed, holding the court lacked authority to consider an untimely petition absent satisfaction of R.C. 2953.23(A) criteria.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Bradley provided ineffective assistance by terminating representation to represent a co-defendant who testified | Bradley withdrew to represent a co-defendant who later became a key witness; counsel was ineffective | Petition is untimely; merits not reached | Denied as untimely; merits not reached |
| 2. Whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to raise the conflict | Counsel should have objected to conflict when co-defendant testified | Same — timeliness bars review | Denied as untimely; merits not reached |
| 3. Whether the State committed due-process/prosecutorial-misconduct by plea-dealing with co-defendant | State knew of conflict when negotiating plea and allowing testimony, violating due process | Same — timeliness bars review | Denied as untimely; merits not reached |
| 4. Whether the trial court should have sua sponte ordered a conflict-of-interest hearing | It was sufficiently apparent the court should have ordered a hearing | Same — timeliness bars review | Denied as untimely; merits not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)