State v. Davis
2013 Ohio 3878
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Von Clark Davis, previously convicted of a 1971 murder, was convicted of aggravated murder in 1984 for killing Suzette Butler and ultimately sentenced to death after multiple appeals and resentencings.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed a prior resentencing and ordered a new three‑judge sentencing hearing because the panel improperly precluded evidence of Davis' good behavior on death row (Davis v. Coyle).
- A third sentencing hearing was held in 2009; the three‑judge panel again imposed death. This court affirmed; appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court was pending.
- In October 2011 Davis filed a postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (trial and at the third sentencing), that Ohio’s postconviction scheme is inadequate, and seeking discovery and an evidentiary hearing.
- The trial court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. The court of appeals affirmed, finding Davis failed to plead sufficient operative facts showing prejudice or entitlement to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance of counsel at third sentencing | Counsel failed to investigate/call additional prison personnel, failed to introduce unit file, poor witness choices, didn’t seek judge recusal, and gave incorrect parole‑eligibility advice | Counsel presented substantial evidence of prison record (witnesses, institutional summary); strategic choices; self‑serving affidavit insufficient to show prejudice | Court: No ineffective assistance shown; additional testimony would be cumulative; strategy decisions not second‑guessed; claim speculative and barred where applicable |
| 2. Ineffective assistance of counsel at original trial (jury waiver) | Original trial counsel failed to advise re: collateral consequences of waiving jury trial | State: Claim is barred by res judicata; Davis could have raised it earlier | Court: Res judicata applies; claim barred |
| 3. Ohio postconviction statute unconstitutional | Statutory postconviction process does not provide adequate corrective process under federal and state constitutions | State: Ohio statutory scheme is an adequate corrective process and courts have repeatedly upheld it | Court: Statute is adequate; claim overruled |
| 4. Denial of discovery and evidentiary hearing | Trial court erred in denying discovery and an evidentiary hearing on postconviction petition | State: Hearing/discovery only required if petitioner pleads operative facts showing substantive grounds for relief; Davis failed to do so | Court: Denial appropriate; Davis did not meet burden to trigger discovery or hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1986) (evidence of good institutional behavior may be mitigating and relevant to future dangerousness)
- Calhoun v. State, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (postconviction relief is a collateral civil attack, not a second appeal)
- Davis v. Coyle, 475 F.3d 761 (6th Cir. 2007) (remanded for resentencing because evidence of good behavior on death row was improperly excluded)
- State v. Davis, 63 Ohio St.3d 44 (Ohio 1992) (Ohio Supreme Court affirmed resentencing to death)