State v. Graham, 2022 Ohio 1140

In 2015 (age 19), Damantae Graham fatally shot an 18‑year‑old during a robbery; a jury convicted him of aggravated murder and related offenses and recommended death.
The trial court imposed death; Graham’s direct appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court resulted in vacatur of the death sentence and a remand for resentencing under R.C. 2929.06 (State v. Graham).
The trial court set a resentencing hearing for March 8, 2021; Graham moved to continue (seeking time for certiorari, counsel recovery, and expert availability) and filed an application to reopen his direct appeal in the Ohio Supreme Court.
The trial court denied continuance motions; the resentencing proceeded on March 8 with testimony from Dr. Laurence Steinberg but not from Dr. Arcelis Rivera (a psychologist who had evaluated Graham and prepared a report).
The court sentenced Graham to life imprisonment without parole plus consecutive terms; Graham appealed, asserting (1) Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment challenge to LWOP for offenders age 21 and younger, (2) abuse of discretion in denying a continuance, and (3) lack of jurisdiction to resentence while his reopening application was pending.
The appellate court held the trial court had jurisdiction, found the denial of the continuance prejudicial because Dr. Rivera’s testimony was material, vacated the LWOP sentence, and remanded for resentencing; Graham’s constitutional challenge was rendered moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether filing an application to reopen a death‑penalty appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to resentence	The State: filing does not divest jurisdiction; only the Supreme Court’s grant and imposed conditions can affect trial-court jurisdiction	Graham: his filing in the Ohio Supreme Court divested the trial court of authority to resentence	Held: Filing alone does not divest jurisdiction; trial court retained authority to resentence (S.Ct.Prac.R.11.06 governs effects of a grant)
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to permit Dr. Rivera (mitigation expert) to testify	The State: prompt resentencing required; Graham had adequate counsel; reopening application was not a basis to delay	Graham: denial prevented material mitigation testimony and prejudiced sentencing; other grounds (counsel surgery, pending reopening) justified delay	Held: Abuse of discretion. Unger factors weighed in favor of a brief continuance for Rivera; denial was prejudicial — vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing
Whether LWOP for offenders age 21 and younger violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments	The State: the claim was not resolved below and is not ripe given remand; sentencing options remain	Graham: LWOP for those 21 and under is unconstitutional	Held: Moot (appellate court did not decide the constitutional challenge because resentencing required)

State v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187 (Ohio 2020) (Ohio Supreme Court vacated Graham's death sentence and remanded for resentencing)
State v. Graham, 163 Ohio St.3d 1416 (Ohio 2021) (Ohio Supreme Court denied Graham's application for reopening)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (due‑process considerations inform review of continuance denials)
State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (factors trial courts should weigh when ruling on continuance requests)
State v. Broom, 40 Ohio St.3d 277 (Ohio 1988) (defendant must show prejudice from denial of continuance)
State v. Brooks, 44 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 1989) (courts should grant reasonable recesses to secure relevant defense witnesses)
Morgan v. Eads, 104 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 2004) (proceedings under App.R. 26(B) are collateral postconviction proceedings)
United States v. King, 127 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 1997) (defendant shows actual prejudice by demonstrating a continuance would have produced material witnesses or evidence)
Louden v. A.O. Smith Corp., 121 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 2009) (Ohio Supreme Court has exclusive authority to promulgate rules of practice and procedure)