State v. Curry, 2019 Ohio 5338

In July 1995 two women (N.C. and T.B.) and two men were assaulted during a masked home invasion; both women were raped and the assailants fled. DNA testing of N.C.’s vaginal swab in 2013 was consistent with Ronald Curry.
Curry was indicted in 2015 on multiple counts including rape, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and firearm specifications; convicted by a jury in March 2017 and sentenced to an aggregate nine years.
On direct appeal this court affirmed the convictions, holding identity was supported by DNA evidence and rejecting other challenges to the trial and delay.
In May 2018 Curry filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate and call Natasha Jackson as a witness.
Curry submitted his affidavit and a written statement from Jackson claiming she had seen Curry and N.C. consensually together days before the assault and that counsel told Curry he would call Jackson but did not; Jackson’s statement lacked a proper notarization acknowledgment.
The trial court denied relief without a hearing as Curry failed to present sufficient operative facts; the court of appeals affirmed, finding Jackson’s statement not credible or a true alibi and that Curry did not satisfy Strickland’s deficiency/prejudice standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Curry)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to call Natasha Jackson	Counsel was deficient for not calling Jackson; her testimony would have provided an alibi, impeached N.C., corroborated prior consensual sex, and explained DNA evidence	Counsel’s decision not to call Jackson was reasonable trial strategy; Jackson is not a true alibi, her statement is self-serving and lacks credibility; Curry did not show prejudice	Denied — petitioner failed to allege sufficient operative facts showing deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland; postconviction petition dismissed without a hearing
Formal sufficiency and credibility of Jackson’s statement	Jackson’s written statement (labeled an affidavit) supports Curry’s claim	Jackson’s statement lacked required notarization acknowledgment and is the statement of an interested party, so it is not entitled to presumption of truth	Court treated the statement as deficient (not a proper sworn affidavit), and permissibly discounted it for credibility reasons
Entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on the petition	Curry argued documentary submissions warranted a hearing	The record, affidavits, and trial transcript show petitioner not entitled to relief	Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing a hearing because the petition and record failed to show substantive grounds for relief

State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (defendant bears burden to submit operative facts in affidavits to warrant postconviction hearing; courts may assess affidavit credibility)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 (Ohio 1980) (postconviction petitioners must demonstrate a cognizable constitutional claim to obtain a hearing)
State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1982) (trial court must ensure petitioner presents sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing)
State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (Ohio 2006) (standard of review — appellate review of denial of postconviction relief is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Moore, 99 Ohio App.3d 748 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994) (factors courts may consider in evaluating affidavit credibility)
State v. Jalowiec, 91 Ohio St.3d 220 (Ohio 2001) (courts should not second-guess reasonable tactical decisions of counsel)
State v. Clay, 108 N.E.3d 642 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018) (discusses formal requirements for affidavits and credibility in postconviction context)