State v. Handcock
2016 Ohio 7096
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2008 James Handcock was tried and convicted of one count of felonious assault with a firearm specification, carrying a concealed weapon, and having weapons while under disability; aggregate sentence 17.5 years.
- Handcock raised competency and NGRI issues pretrial; a court-ordered competency evaluation found him competent to stand trial.
- Handcock appealed and his convictions were affirmed; he later filed multiple motions to vacate sentence which were also rejected on appeal.
- In January 2016 Handcock filed a motion seeking permission to file a successive post-conviction petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the competency evaluation or obtain an independent evaluation.
- The motion was prepared and submitted with the assistance of another inmate (a "jailhouse lawyer"); the trial court rejected the filing as the unauthorized practice of law and refused to accept it.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding the underlying ineffective-assistance claim was barred by res judicata even if the filing’s rejection on unauthorized-practice grounds were erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly rejected Handcock's filing because it was prepared by an inmate engaging in unauthorized practice of law | The State: court may refuse filings prepared by non-attorneys to prevent unauthorized practice; filings by non-attorneys are a legal nullity | Handcock: filing was prepared by a jailhouse lawyer because Handcock lacked legal skill and alternatives were unavailable; he effectively sought relief on the merits | Court affirmed that rejecting filings prepared by non-attorneys is permissible, but did not need to decide whether restriction was improper because of alternative ground |
| Whether Handcock’s ineffective-assistance claim (failure to challenge competency evaluation/request independent evaluation) was cognizable in a successive post-conviction petition | Handcock: counsel was ineffective for not challenging the competency evaluation, entitling him to successive relief | State: claim could have been raised on direct appeal; thus barred by res judicata | Court held the claim was barred by res judicata because it related to matters in the record and could have been raised on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Zubaidah, 140 Ohio St.3d 495 (2014) (defines unauthorized practice of law in Ohio)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, 142 Ohio St.3d 459 (2015) (assisting non-attorneys in preparing pleadings constitutes unauthorized practice)
- Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. (1934) (historical authority describing preparation of pleadings as practice of law)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Cotton, 115 Ohio St.3d 113 (2007) (prisoners’ access to jailhouse lawyers constrained only if reasonable alternatives exist)
- Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969) (constitutional limits on restricting inmate legal assistance where no alternatives exist)
- Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata bars collateral attack on matters that could have been raised on direct appeal)