State v. Dillingham
2012 Ohio 5841
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Charles Dillingham was indicted on four counts of felonious assault with firearm specifications and one count of having weapons while under disability for a Grub Pub shooting in Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio.
- Video surveillance captured Dillingham entering the Grub Pub and shooting two victims as they walked in.
- Dillingham was tried by a bench trial in January 2011 and found guilty on all counts; he was sentenced to 14 years in prison.
- Dillingham appealed and the appellate court affirmed his conviction in Dillingham I (2011-Ohio-6348).
- Dillingham filed a postconviction petition in October 2011 and a motion for counsel; the trial court denied the petition and the motion, with the summary judgment motion mooted.
- Dillingham now appeals the denial of his postconviction relief, raising three assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct due to nondisclosure of exculpatory Roberson statements | Dillingham claims Crim.R. 16(B) and Brady require disclosure of Roberson statements favorable to him. | State did not disclose Roberson statements and such nondisclosure prejudiced Dillingham. | No prejudice; Roberson statements were not material or favorable to exoneration; res judicata also applies. |
| Ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel regarding Roberson | |||
| witness issues | Trial counsel failed to interview or obtain Roberson evidence and to call her as a witness; appellate counsel failed to raise these issues. | Counsel's strategic choices cannot be second-guessed; no prejudice shown. | Counsel's performance not deficient and not prejudicial; no ineffective-assistance award. |
| State's failure to respond to postconviction petition barred by res judicata or due process | State's lack of response should bar further proceedings under res judicata. | State's duty to respond is discretionary; not barred from proceeding on appeal. | State's lack of response did not entitle relief and does not affect the ruling; petition properly denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (postconviction standards; res judicata limits)
- Hicks, 2005-Ohio-1237 (2005) (standard for denying postconviction hearings; evidentiary burden)
- LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (2002) (Brady materiality and prejudice standard)
- Dillingham, 2011-Ohio-6348 (2011) (Dillingham I; prior appellate affirmation of conviction)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Brady materiality; reasonable probability of different result)