State v. Franks, 2017 Ohio 7045

Background

Jerry Franks was convicted and ultimately sentenced to 23 years to life in 1999; he filed multiple post-conviction petitions challenging his conviction.
In 2001 Franks filed a delayed post-conviction petition claiming Brady-type suppression of ballistics evidence; the trial court denied it and he did not appeal that denial.
In October 2016 Franks filed a second delayed post-conviction petition alleging (1) prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory ballistics evidence (Brady), (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and (3) that a series of Supreme Court decisions (including Martinez, Trevino, Montgomery, Crawford, and Danforth) established new retroactive rights that permitted his late filing.
The trial court dismissed the 2016 petition without a hearing for lack of jurisdiction under Ohio’s timeliness statute (former R.C. 2953.21/2953.23), concluding Franks failed to satisfy the exceptions for untimely petitions.
On appeal Franks argued (through four assignments of error) that the trial court erred by refusing to apply Martinez/Trevino/Montgomery or Crawford/Danforth retroactively, by denying discovery to indigent petitioners, and by finding he was not ‘‘unavoidably prevented’’ from discovering the allegedly withheld ballistics evidence.
The Ninth District affirmed: it held (1) Martinez/Trevino do not create a retroactive constitutional right for state post-conviction relief; (2) Franks failed to show Crawford issues or satisfy the clear-and-convincing prejudice requirement; (3) there is no statutory right to discovery in Ohio post-conviction proceedings and Franks did not develop an equal-protection/indigency claim; and (4) Franks did not show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the asserted evidence within the statutory framework.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Martinez/Trevino (and Montgomery) create a new retroactive right enabling an untimely post-conviction petition	Franks: Martinez/Trevino (as made binding by Montgomery) announced new federal/state rights that apply retroactively to state post-conviction proceedings	State: Those decisions do not announce new constitutional rights for collateral review that make an untimely petition timely	Court: Martinez/Trevino are equitable rules for federal habeas procedural default and do not create a retroactive constitutional right; petition untimely, dismissal affirmed
Whether Crawford (via Danforth) was made retroactive to permit collateral relief for testimonial hearsay errors	Franks: Crawford was made retroactive through Danforth and applies to his case	State: Franks failed to identify the contested statements, show they are Crawford-type testimonial hearsay, or meet prejudice requirement	Court: Franks failed to develop Crawford-based or prejudice arguments; court need not reach retroactivity; dismissal affirmed
Whether denial of discovery in post-conviction proceedings violates due process/equal protection as to indigent petitioners	Franks: Denial of discovery prevents indigent unrepresented petitioners from presenting Brady/Strickland claims	State: Ohio law provides no discovery in post-conviction proceedings; statutes are neutral and Franks did not develop an equal-protection argument	Court: No recognized right to post-conviction discovery in Ohio; Franks did not develop the constitutional claim; argument rejected
Whether Franks was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering exculpatory ballistics evidence so as to excuse timeliness	Franks: He only recently learned (via co-defendant’s appellate materials) that bullets matched co-defendant’s gun and the evidence had been withheld	State: The appellate decisions were available in 1998; Franks gives no explanation for the 18+ year delay or for why he could not have discovered the information earlier	Court: Franks did not show unavoidable prevention or reasonable diligence; statutory exceptions not met; dismissal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor's suppression of materially exculpatory evidence violates due process)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay absent opportunity for cross-examination)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (narrow equitable exception to procedural default in federal habeas where counsel was ineffective in initial-review collateral proceeding)
Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (extends Martinez to certain state procedural contexts)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (on retroactivity of substantive new rules; cited by parties regarding retroactivity issues)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (no constitutional right to counsel in state collateral proceedings; procedural default doctrine)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims)