State v. Gray, 2022 Ohio 1945

Ramon Gray was convicted in 2009 of two counts of aggravated murder (with firearm specifications) and one weapons-under-disability count and sentenced to life without parole.
On direct appeal (Gray I) this court rejected claims that the visiting judge was improperly assigned, that referring to a specification as a "mass murder" specification was prejudicial, and that denial of an expert for eyewitness identification violated due process. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Gray filed a petition for postconviction relief asserting ineffective assistance for failing to object to the visiting judge, denial of an expert on eyewitness ID, and prejudice from the court’s references to the specification; he later supplemented with affidavits (including from his brother Rufus) claiming Gray was not present or that Rufus shot the victims.
Gray sought multiple delayed motions for new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence (affidavits from Rufus and others); the trial court denied relief and this court affirmed in Gray II and Gray III, finding the evidence was not newly discovered and the claims were barred by res judicata.
The trial court denied Gray’s petition for postconviction relief, concluding the claims were barred by res judicata and that the supplemental affidavits were not relevant to the claims raised; Gray appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion and that he submitted evidence dehors the record entitling him to an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying postconviction relief	Gray argued denial violated Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments and amounted to an abuse of discretion	State argued claims were barred by res judicata because they were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal	Court held trial court did not abuse discretion; claims barred by res judicata
Whether Gray presented sufficient evidence dehors the record to require an evidentiary hearing	Gray contended supplemental affidavits and new statements were competent, relevant, and merited a hearing	State argued affidavits were either cumulative, irrelevant to the petitioned claims, or required leave to be filed after the state responded; thus no basis for a hearing	Court held Gray did not present relevant evidence dehors the record and failed to state operative facts entitling him to a hearing

State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967) (doctrine of res judicata bars claims on postconviction that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Combs, 100 Ohio App.3d 90, 652 N.E.2d 205 (1st Dist. 1994) (evidence appended to a postconviction petition must be competent, relevant, and material and not merely cumulative)