State v. Edwards, 2015 Ohio 3039

Richard D. Edwards was indicted in two Ross County cases (12CR140 and 12CR374) on counts including tampering with evidence, illegal manufacture/possession of drugs, and possession of materials for manufacture; he pleaded not guilty and was tried in October 2013.
The jury convicted Edwards on all counts. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences across the two cases for an aggregate nine-year prison term.
Edwards filed delayed appeals; this court in Edwards I affirmed convictions in part but reversed sentencing because the trial court had not applied the proper statutory criteria for consecutive sentences and remanded for resentencing.
Before Edwards I issued, Edwards filed R.C. 2953.21 petitions for postconviction relief asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to call/examine witnesses and to present mitigating evidence) and that consecutive sentences violated Ohio law.
The trial court denied the postconviction petitions; Edwards appealed that denial to this court (the present appeal).
The appellate court affirmed the denial: the consecutive-sentence claim was moot in light of Edwards I, and the ineffective-assistance claims were barred by res judicata because they could and should have been raised on direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of consecutive sentences	State: sentencing error was addressed by remand in Edwards I	Edwards: consecutive sentences violated Ohio law and his jury-rights under relevant Supreme Court precedent	Moot — consecutive-sentence claim resolved by Edwards I; sentencing remand already ordered
Ineffective assistance — failure to call/examine witnesses	State: claim not cognizable on postconviction because it could have been raised on direct appeal	Edwards: trial counsel omitted key witnesses and questioning that would have rebutted drug-manufacture evidence	Dismissed — barred by res judicata; not properly raised in petition for postconviction relief
Ineffective assistance — failure to present mitigating evidence at sentencing	State: same procedural bar; could have been raised on direct appeal	Edwards: counsel failed to present mitigating testimony before sentencing	Dismissed — barred by res judicata and not properly before the court

State v. Jackson, 141 Ohio St.3d 171, 23 N.E.3d 1023 (Ohio 2014) (issues that could be raised on direct appeal cannot be raised in a postconviction petition)
Lynch v. Wilson, 114 Ohio St.3d 118, 868 N.E.2d 982 (Ohio 2007) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (Ohio 1967) (establishes that postconviction relief cannot be used to litigate issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)