State v. Hartman
2017 Ohio 7933
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Mark Hartman was indicted on three counts of first-degree rape, waived a jury, and after a bench trial was convicted and sentenced to concurrent four-year terms; his direct appeal was later affirmed.
- While his direct appeal was pending, Hartman filed a post-conviction petition under R.C. 2953.21 raising multiple ineffective-assistance claims and one Brady claim.
- The State filed a motion for summary judgment on the petition; the trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
- The trial court scheduled and the parties followed a briefing schedule that extended the State’s time to move for summary judgment beyond the 20-day period in the statute; the court found Hartman waived a timeliness objection.
- The court analyzed the petition both under the summary-judgment standard (R.C. 2953.21(D)) and the summary-dismissal/no-hearing standard (R.C. 2953.21(C)), concluding most claims were either barred by res judicata or failed to present operative facts showing prejudice or deficient performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hartman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of State's summary-judgment motion | Motion was timely under the court-approved briefing schedule; Hartman waived any objection | Motion was filed >20 days after issues were "raised" per R.C. 2953.21(D) and is therefore untimely | Court: briefing schedule set before the 20-day period expired constituted a waiver by Hartman; motion treated as timely; assignment overruled |
| Use of materials outside the record / conflation of R.C. 2953.21(C) and (D) | Court may consider petition under both dismissal (C) and summary-judgment (D) analyses; any outside-the-record references were unnecessary to dismissal | Court improperly relied on affidavits, reply affidavit, and judge’s recollections contrary to the "face of the record" rule for summary judgment | Court: no prejudicial error because dismissal under 2953.21(C) was supported by the record; assignment overruled |
| Conflict of interest (counsel representing Gordon and Hartman) | Emails/contacts do not show an actual conflict or that counsel acted to protect Gordon to Hartman’s detriment | Counsel failed to preserve alleged physical evidence (trash/wine bottles) and conferred with Gordon to Hartman’s prejudice | Court: evidence insufficient to raise operative facts showing actual conflict or prejudice; claim dismissed |
| Attorney-client privilege / family present in meetings | Family involvement did not demonstrate counsel’s deficiency or resulting prejudice | Presence of family inhibited disclosure to counsel, harming defense and credibility | Court: allegations speculative, affidavits lack operative facts showing withheld admissions or prejudice; claim dismissed |
| Delivery and contents of Hartman’s written statement (waiver/Fifth Amendment) | Statement was drafted with counsel and signed by Hartman; earlier direct-appeal issues bar relitigation; no showing of unknowing waiver or prejudice | Counsel improperly used language from other clients and provided statement to detective without protecting rights | Court: res judicata bars much of the claim; remaining points fail to show deficient performance or prejudice; claim dismissed |
| Brady / late disclosure (comforter stain diagram) | Diagram omission was previously litigated; even if suppressed, stain locations did not affect credibility or outcome | Failure to provide diagram was a Brady violation that undermined trial fairness | Court: claim barred by res judicata; alternatively, no prejudice shown; claim dismissed |
| Cumulative/other ineffective-assistance allegations (investigation, preparation, polygraph, jury waiver) | Tactical decisions (polygraphs, bench trial waiver, investigation choices) were reasonable strategy; many criticisms were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal | Multiple discrete examples of insufficient preparation and bad advice (15 items) that together show deficient performance and prejudice | Court: some items arguably outside direct-appeal record, but none establish both deficient performance and prejudice; jury-waiver and polygraph advice were reasonable strategy; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s suppression of material exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (1955) (presumption that counsel’s conduct is within range of reasonable professional assistance)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (final judgment bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal; res judicata in post-conviction context)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio’s adaptation of Strickland standards)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (trial court may judge credibility of affidavits when deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing on post-conviction petition)