State v. Glover
2014 Ohio 3228
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In 1996 Glover, Wheatt, and co-defendant Johnson (all juveniles tried as adults) were convicted of the 1995 murder of Clifton Hudson; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- The state’s case relied on eyewitness Tamika Harris (then 14), physical evidence including gunshot-residue (AAS) on Wheatt’s hands and residue found in the black Blazer, and corroborating testimony that the defendants were in the vehicle at the scene.
- Harris later recanted, prompting multiple postconviction/new-trial motions and appeals; Johnson briefly obtained a new trial which was reversed on appeal.
- Appellants sought relief based on (1) Harris’s recantation and alleged unduly suggestive identification/Brady violations, (2) new forensic science (SEM/EDS) undermining AAS gunshot-residue evidence, and (3) claim of actual innocence; many claims were litigated previously in state and federal proceedings.
- In January 2013 appellants filed a successive petition for postconviction relief arguing Martinez v. Ryan created a right to effective postconviction counsel that would allow review; the trial court denied relief and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez v. Ryan creates a retroactive right permitting merits review of a successive postconviction petition | Appellants: Martinez recognizes a right to effective assistance in initial postconviction proceedings and excuses procedural default where postconviction counsel was ineffective, so their successive petition should be heard on the merits | State: Martinez is a narrow habeas equitable exception limited to initial-review collateral proceedings and does not apply to successive postconviction petitions like these | Court: Martinez does not apply; Coleman governs here. Appellants had multiple prior opportunities to raise claims, so the trial court properly declined to reach the merits. |
| Whether police conduct and nondisclosure rendered Harris’s pretrial identification unduly suggestive / Brady violation | Appellants: Police suggestions and nondisclosure of officer conduct impeached Harris and violated Brady and due process | State: Identification and disclosures were sufficiently handled earlier; claims were previously litigated | Court: Claims were previously adjudicated; because Martinez does not apply, these successive claims are moot and need not be reached. |
| Whether advances in SEM/EDS undermine the reliability of the AAS gunshot-residue evidence and warrant a new trial | Appellants: SEM/EDS shows AAS cannot reliably identify GSR; new science undermines the forensic foundation of Wheatt’s conviction | State: SEM/EDS may be more accurate but does not retroactively invalidate AAS; evidence still supports the conviction | Court: This is a successive collateral claim excluded from Martinez; previously litigated and therefore not reviewable here. |
| Whether appellants are actually innocent such that due process requires relief | Appellants: Combined new evidence (recantation, forensic science) shows actual innocence | State: No clear and convincing new evidence meeting the statutory standard; prior rulings stand | Court: Because Martinez does not afford relief for successive petitions and the claims were previously addressed, the court did not reach actual-innocence merits; petition denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (limited equitable rule excusing procedural default when initial-review collateral counsel was ineffective)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (no federal constitutional right to effective counsel in postconviction proceedings)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (no federal right to appointed counsel in state postconviction proceedings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of trial counsel)
- Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339 (1994) (habeas relief standard for fundamental defects and miscarriage of justice)