State v. Jones
2017 Ohio 1121
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Antonio Jones was indicted for murder, tampering with evidence, and weapons offenses after James Lane was fatally shot at Happy Family Bar in April 2013; surveillance video, a recovered firearm, and eyewitness testimony implicated Jones.
- At trial Jones claimed self-defense and testified he shot the victim but said he "hit the wrong guy." The jury convicted Jones; the court merged murder counts and sentenced him to an aggregate 33 years to life.
- Jones’ direct appeal and an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen were denied.
- Jones filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to call or impeach witnesses, failure to seek lesser-included instructions, insufficient visits, excessive continuances, and failure to pursue a two-gun theory).
- The trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing (finding many claims barred by res judicata and none showing deficient performance or prejudice). Jones appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on post-conviction petition | State: Jones failed to allege substantive grounds for relief warranting a hearing | Jones: Presented operative facts showing ineffective assistance and prejudice | Denied — abuse-of-discretion review; court found petition lacked substantive grounds and no hearing required |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to call Tamiko Wyche | State: Identity was not contested (Jones admitted shooting); calling Wyche wouldn’t have aided self-defense theory | Jones: Wyche’s police statements would show she could not identify him as shooter | Denied — trial strategy to focus on self-defense reasonable; no prejudice shown |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to develop/argue a two-gun theory or to impeach eyewitnesses with police summaries | State: Summaries do not support another shooter; statements referenced appellant as the "suspect" | Jones: Informational summaries mention a light-skinned male who might be a second shooter | Denied — summaries did not substantiate a second shooter; counsel not deficient and no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Claims barred by res judicata (failure to request lesser-included instruction; other trial strategy claims raised or available on direct appeal) | State: Claims could/should have been raised on direct appeal | Jones: Trial counsel was ineffective on those fronts and post-conviction relief is proper | Denied — court applied res judicata and alternatively found claims lacked merit; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Griffie, 74 Ohio St.3d 332 (1996) (failure to request lesser-included offense instruction is generally trial strategy and not per se ineffective assistance)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for bias)