State v. Gray
2021 Ohio 2446
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Ricardo Gray was convicted in 1999 of murder, felonious assault, and a firearm specification and sentenced to 23 years to life; convictions and sentence were upheld on direct appeal.
- Over two decades Gray filed multiple postconviction petitions and appeals alleging Brady suppression, newly discovered evidence, and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, frequently asserting that a man named Bennie Kern was the real shooter.
- In 2015 Gray obtained documents via the Ohio Innocence Project: Detective Michael Cipo’s original investigation report and sketch, and police interview summaries for Edward McDowell and Gary Blanchard; in 2019 he received an affidavit from Derrick James claiming Bennie Kern shot the victim.
- Gray filed a 2016 petition relying on some of those documents (denied) and an April 2020 petition relying on the same documents plus James’s affidavit; the trial court dismissed the 2020 petition as untimely and successive under R.C. 2953.23.
- The trial court found Gray failed to show he was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering the evidence or that, by clear and convincing evidence, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty; the court also found res judicata barred his claims.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding the petition was untimely/successive, the statutory threshold under R.C. 2953.23 was not met, the asserted documentary and affidavit evidence was cumulative or discoverable earlier, and no Brady or counsel-performance error warranted relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gray) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the untimely/successive postconviction petition met R.C. 2953.23 to permit review | The petition is untimely and successive; Gray did not show unavoidable prevention or the required clear-and-convincing standard | Gray says newly discovered and newly obtained documents (2015) and a 2019 affidavit show he was unavoidably prevented from earlier discovery | Denied — Gray failed both prongs of R.C. 2953.23 (no unavoidable prevention; no clear-and-convincing showing) |
| Whether the state suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland | The evidence Gray cites was either available earlier or cumulative; no Brady violation that would have changed the outcome | Brady violation: police reports and interview summaries contained exculpatory facts that were withheld and would have supported his defense | Denied — court found no constitutional Brady violation and no materiality sufficient to overturn conviction |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, review discovery, or call witnesses (e.g., Derrick James) | Counsel’s conduct did not meet the standard for relief; many witnesses corroborating "Bennie" were presented; James was known pretrial | Counsel failed to investigate or call James and failed to exploit inconsistencies in police reports to mount effective defense | Denied — failure-to-call/additional witnesses or cross-examination claims were cumulative or could have been raised earlier; Gray knew of James at trial, so not "unavoidably prevented" |
| Whether res judicata bars Gray’s claims | The State: Gray has repeatedly raised these same theories and documents; res judicata precludes relitigation | Gray contends the documents and affidavit are newly obtained and change the analysis | Denied — res judicata bars the petition because the claims and evidence were or could have been raised previously |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of material, exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- Milanovich, 42 Ohio St.2d 46 (1975) (postconviction relief may address claims based on evidence outside the trial record)
- Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard and dismissal without hearing where petition lacks sufficient operative facts)
- Kimbrough v. Greene, 98 Ohio St.3d 116 (2002) (trial courts need not issue findings when dismissing untimely or successive petitions)
- Carroll v. Corrigan, 84 Ohio St.3d 529 (1999) (same principle regarding dismissal of untimely petitions)
- Davis, 119 Ohio St.3d 422 (2008) (res judicata bars re-litigation of issues that were or could have been raised earlier)
- Apanovitch, 107 Ohio App.3d 82 (1995) (res judicata and limits on successive postconviction petitions)
- Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (1994) (limitations on successive petitions and related doctrines)