State v. Harding
2020 Ohio 1067
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Harding was pulled over in a vehicle and officers found 123 pounds of marijuana; he was convicted of drug possession and criminal tools and sentenced to eight years.
- Harding appealed; this court affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal.
- Harding filed a pro se delayed appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court (denied) and then a petition for postconviction relief alleging Brady violations, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- His postconviction petition claimed (a) the state used an altered dashcam video at trial, (b) the state failed to pay a forensic expert so no report was available at trial, and (c) new evidence showed the passenger (Voight) later accepted responsibility for the drugs.
- The trial court denied the petition without a hearing or discovery; the court of appeals affirmed, concluding claims were barred by res judicata and not supported by competent, material evidence outside the trial record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on the postconviction petition | Harding: trial court should hold a hearing and allow discovery to investigate alleged Brady/prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance | State: petition failed to allege sufficient operative facts and claims were barred by res judicata; no new evidentiary basis shown | Court: affirmed denial; no abuse of discretion where petition and record do not show sufficient operative facts to warrant a hearing |
| Whether the state used altered dashcam video at trial (Brady/ misconduct) | Harding: dashcam was altered and this violated his rights | State: issue was litigated at trial and on direct appeal; not newly discovered | Court: claim was raised or could have been raised on direct appeal and is barred by res judicata |
| Whether the state’s alleged failure to pay a forensic expert deprived Harding of evidence (Brady) | Harding: expert wasn’t paid, no report provided in time for trial, prejudicing defense | State: any failure to pay occurred at trial and was known then; not newly discovered and could have been raised on direct appeal | Court: not newly discovered; claim could have been raised on direct appeal and is barred by res judicata |
| Whether statements by passenger Voight accepting responsibility constitute newly discovered evidence requiring relief | Harding: Voight later admitted responsibility, showing new evidence of Harding’s innocence | State: Voight and his potential testimony were known at trial; Harding elected a defense blaming Voight and could have called him | Court: Voight’s statements are not newly discovered; claim is barred by res judicata and insufficient to show operative facts for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (trial court may deny postconviction petition without a hearing where petition, affidavits, and record do not show sufficient operative facts)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard applies)