State v. J.A., 2021 Ohio 2265

Background:

Defendant J.A., the victim’s first cousin, was charged in a superseding indictment with multiple sex- and kidnap-related offenses; bench trial tried counts arising from an August 26, 2016 assault.
Victim reported the assault the next day; a rape kit showed J.A.’s DNA matched the seminal fraction from the victim’s underwear; trial court convicted J.A. of rape and kidnapping and sentenced him to 10 years to life.
Two days before trial a defense investigator recorded an interview of the victim in which she named a previously undisclosed woman who had been at the home; the defense also had a letter from J.A. to the victim’s mother claiming he took responsibility while asserting consent.
The defense provided the recorded interview to the state via a Google Drive link the evening before trial; the prosecutor could not access it and the trial court excluded the recording at trial.
J.A. filed a postconviction petition arguing ineffective assistance (late investigation, loss/exclusion of the interview, inability to present a new witness, and impeachment evidence). The trial court denied relief without a hearing (res judicata and lack of merit). J.A. appealed and this court affirmed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for a delayed investigation and late interview of the victim/new witness	Prosecutor: counsel’s investigation and timing did not prejudice the outcome given record and forensic evidence	J.A.: counsel waited until two days before trial to interview the victim, failing to locate and call a newly disclosed witness who would corroborate consent/three‑some defense	Court: no ineffective assistance — counsel’s performance not shown deficient and testimony of the potential witness would not have changed outcome (not an eyewitness)
2. Whether exclusion of the recorded interview and letter deprived J.A. of confrontation/compulsory process and constituted ineffective assistance	Prosecutor: late disclosure justified exclusion; trial evidence and forensic results remained strong	J.A.: exclusion prevented impeachment of the victim and denied his right to confront witnesses and present a defense	Court: exclusion did not prejudice J.A.; the proffered transcript corroborated trial testimony and the letter/interview would not have materially impeached victim given DNA and testimony
3. Whether the postconviction petition entitled J.A. to an evidentiary hearing	Prosecutor: petition did not present operative facts or affidavits to show substantive grounds for relief	J.A.: alleged constitutional errors warrant a hearing to develop evidence (investigator, witness, recording)	Court: no hearing required — petition, attachments, and record did not show sufficient operative facts to merit a hearing
4. Procedural defects: filing amended petitions without leave and res judicata bar	Prosecutor: amended petitions were filed without leave; claims previously litigated are barred	J.A.: argued trial court erred in finding petition filed without leave (but court reached merits)	Court: procedural defects noted but moot because court addressed merits; res judicata and lack of evidentiary support justified denial

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Bradley v. State, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio application of Strickland; no need to address both prongs if one fails)
Calhoun v. State, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (postconviction petition may be denied without a hearing if petition and record fail to show sufficient operative facts)
Steffen v. State, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (1994) (postconviction relief is a collateral civil attack on a criminal judgment)
Jackson v. State, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 (1980) (no automatic right to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction petition)
Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (1955) (courts must indulge strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within wide range of reasonable professional assistance)