State v. Davis, 2014 Ohio 90

Background

In Aug. 2006 appellant Allen S. Davis fired multiple .22 rifle shots at a vehicle of five teenage girls; one girl, Rachel, was shot. Police recovered the rifle; Davis admitted firing warning shots believing intruders were at his home.
A grand jury indicted Davis on five counts of felonious assault with firearm specifications; he initially pled not guilty and underwent competency and sanity evaluations.
Dr. Jaime Lai found Davis competent to stand trial but opined he suffered a severe mental disease and did not know the wrongfulness of his acts at the time of the offense; a second evaluator, Dr. Kristin Haskins, agreed on competency but disagreed that Davis was mentally ill.
After jury selection and opening statements, Davis withdrew his not-guilty plea and pled guilty to two counts with specifications; the trial court sentenced him to 19 years. He did not file a timely direct appeal.
Davis petitioned for post-conviction relief, arguing (1) his guilty plea was not knowing/voluntary because counsel misadvised him about consequences of an NGRI defense, (2) counsel was ineffective for acceding to his direction to abandon NGRI, and (3) the court abused discretion by denying discovery/hearing. The trial court denied relief without a hearing; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Davis)	Held
Whether Davis's guilty plea was involuntary because counsel misadvised about NGRI consequences	Plea was knowingly entered; record contradicts Davis's later affidavits	Counsel misinformed Davis that successful NGRI would mean inevitable long-term institutionalization, so Davis would not have pleaded guilty if properly advised	Court rejected Davis's self-serving affidavits as insufficient and held plea was voluntary
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by abandoning a meritorious NGRI defense	Counsel reasonably followed client’s decision and professional norms; Davis failed to show prejudice	Counsel should have pursued NGRI based on Dr. Lai’s report; affidavit of defense-expert supports counsel deficiency	Court held presumption of competence applies; Davis failed to show prejudice or operative facts outside the record
Whether res judicata bars Davis’s claims because he did not timely appeal	State argues claims that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred	Davis argues ineffective assistance claims survive as post-conviction matters supported by affidavits	Court applied res judicata and limited Davis to evidence outside the trial record; his outside evidence was insufficient
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying discovery/hearing on post-conviction petition	No right to additional discovery in post-conviction collateral proceedings; hearing unnecessary given insufficient petition	Davis sought depositions and discovery to corroborate his claims	Court held denying discovery/hearing was not an abuse of discretion because petition lacked substantive grounds

Key Cases Cited

Vaughn v. Maxwell, 2 Ohio St.2d 299 (1966) (licensed attorney presumed competent)
State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98 (1985) (burden on defendant to show ineffective assistance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (post-conviction proceedings may be dismissed without hearing where petition lacks operative facts)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982) (res judicata bars post-conviction claims that could be raised on direct appeal)
State v. Monford, 190 Ohio App.3d 35 (2010) (NGRI is affirmative defense; competency standard differs from sanity at time of offense)
State v. Tenace, 121 Ohio App.3d 702 (1997) (defense counsel may not override client’s decision on pleas)