State v. Heid
2016 Ohio 2756
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Ray S. Heid pled guilty to murder and a firearm specification in 2008 and was sentenced to 18 years to life; he did not file a timely direct appeal.
- Heid filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea in 2010 (ineffective-assistance claim); the trial court denied it.
- Heid filed another pro se motion to withdraw his plea in 2014 raising the same ineffective-assistance argument; it was unsuccessful.
- In March 2015 Heid filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief asserting trial counsel coerced him into pleading guilty and misadvised him that manslaughter was not viable; he attached an unsworn letter from a friend (Tom Starr) obtained in 2014.
- The state opposed the petition as untimely, meritless, and barred by res judicata; the trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal the Fourth District affirmed, holding the petition untimely, that Heid failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the Starr letter, and that res judicata barred the claims previously raised (or that could have been raised) in earlier post-sentence motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying post-conviction petition without an evidentiary hearing | Heid: presented operative facts and exhibits (affidavit, Starr letter) warranting a hearing on ineffective assistance and coercion | State: petition was untimely and failed statutory gateway; no operative facts to require a hearing | Court: No error — petition untimely and failed to present operative facts; no hearing required |
| Whether the untimely petition satisfied R.C. 2953.23(A) ("unavoidably prevented" discovery) | Heid: unsworn Starr letter obtained Sept 2014 shows he was unavoidably prevented from discovery until then | State: Heid gives no reason for the multi-year delay; unsworn letter is inadmissible and not sufficient to meet the gateway | Court: Rejected — Heid did not show unavoidable prevention and unsworn letter cannot carry the burden |
| Whether res judicata bars Heid’s ineffective-assistance claims | Heid: claims persistently show counsel’s error and coercion warrant relief despite prior motions | State: Heid raised or could have raised same claims in earlier post-sentence motions; res judicata applies to postconviction proceedings | Court: Res judicata bars the claims because they were raised or could have been raised earlier |
| Whether Heid was entitled to two appointed trial attorneys under former Sup.R. 20 / Appt.Coun.R. 5.02 | Heid: trial court violated due process by not appointing two attorneys (cited affidavits of other capital defendants) | State: Heid was not charged with death-penalty specifications; the rule applies to capital cases only; claim untimely and barred by res judicata | Court: Claim fails — Heid not entitled to two attorneys and claim is untimely/res judicata-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (post-conviction relief is a narrow statutory remedy; no automatic right to evidentiary hearing)
- State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (standard of review for denial of postconviction relief: abuse of discretion)
- State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (trial court may deny an evidentiary hearing if petitioner fails to set forth operative facts)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (res judicata in criminal/postconviction context)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (res judicata bars issues that were or could have been raised earlier)
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (res judicata bars piecemeal claims in successive postconviction motions)