State v. Hendrix, 2013 Ohio 638

Appellant Erin Hendrix was secretly indicted on 22 felony counts related to lead poisoning of her daughter, including multiple lead contamination and related penalty enhancements.
She was convicted at trial of felonious assault, both endangering-children counts, and 11 complicity counts; the court merged counts and entered a judgment on one complicity count resulting in a life sentence with parole eligibility at 15 years.
Hendrix appealed and this court affirmed; she later sought reopening, which was denied, and she then filed a timely petition for postconviction relief in the trial court.
The trial court dismissed the postconviction petition without a hearing, and Hendrix appeals that dismissal.
Hendrix challenged alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel and evidentiary issues related to CDC isotope reports and Dr. Quang’s testimony, asserting due process and confrontation concerns.
The court analyzed whether the petition could be heard at all, applying res judicata and the standard for postconviction relief petitions under R.C. 2953.21.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition for postconviction relief was properly dismissed	Hendrix asserts denial of rights; trial counsel and evidentiary issues merit relief	State contends issues could have been raised on direct appeal and are barred by res judicata	Dismissal upheld; res judicata bars postconviction relief
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not employing an expert	Affidavit supports ineffective assistance in not hiring an expert	Cross-examination and record defense made an expert unnecessary; issue resolved without dehors-the-record evidence	barred by res judicata; no hearing required
Whether admission of lead nitrate samples and related testimony violated rights	Counsel should have objected; testimony prejudicial and incorrectly foundational	Issues could be resolved on direct appeal without dehors-the-record evidence	barred by res judicata
Whether Hendrix’s confrontation rights were violated by Dr. Quang’s testimony without cross-examining the authors	Quang’s testimony should be limited; authors should be cross-examined	Cross-examination of authors was possible; issue could be handled on direct appeal	barred by res judicata

Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (postconviction hearing standard; relief requires cognizable error)
Adams, 11th Dist. No. 2003-T-0064, 2005-Ohio-348 (2005) (abuse of discretion in denying postconviction relief; evidentiary standard)
Towler, 10th Dist. No. 05AP-387, 2006-Ohio-2441 (2006) (res judicata in postconviction contexts)
Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata as to issues raised at trial and on direct appeal)
Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982) (res judicata and procedural bars in postconviction relief)
Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (defense claims precluded by prior litigation or failure to raise at trial)
Jones, 2002-Ohio-2074 (2002) (res judicata in postconviction handling of constitutional claims)
Towler, 2006-Ohio-2441 (2006) (detailed res judicata application in postconviction petition)