2014 Ohio 693
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Keeley was convicted in 2011 of two counts of rape and three counts of gross sexual imposition; he received a seven-year sentence.
- The Fourth District affirmed Keeley’s conviction in Keeley I; the Ohio Supreme Court denied further review in Keeley IA.
- Keeley filed a postconviction relief petition in 2011; the trial court dismissed on res judicata grounds, prompting Keeley II remand.
- After remand, the trial court again denied postconviction relief on August 8, 2013, leading to this appeal.
- The issues Keeley raises on appeal concern trial-phase conduct (supposed plain error, expert testimony, sufficiency/weight, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance, and an electronic surveillance claim).
- The court concluded all issues were barred by res judicata because they could have or were already raised in Keeley I or Keeley II, and affirmed the trial court’s denial of postconviction relief and Keeley’s conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata applies to postconviction claims | Keeley contends issues are not barred. | State argues issues were or could have been raised previously. | Barred by res judicata; no new postconviction merits review. |
| Juror questions and trial court clarification | Keeley asserts failure to clear juror confusion violated due process. | Questions routine; no merit to claim of plain error. | No merit; res judicata bars reconsideration. |
| Admission of expert testimony | Keeley argues witnesses’ expert testimony was improper. | Testimony properly admitted; issues previously raised. | Barred by res judicata; no merit shown. |
| Sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence | Keeley claims insufficient evidence and weight issues. | Evidence supports convictions; issues litigated before. | barred by res judicata; even on merits, would fail |
| Prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance | Keeley alleges misconduct and ineffective assistance. | Issues resolved against Keeley in prior decisions. | Barred; no merit under prior rulings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Keeley, 134 Ohio St.3d 1508 (2013-Ohio-1123) (Keeley I; postconviction relief, res judicata, affirmed conviction)
- State v. Keeley, 135 Ohio St.3d 1460 (2013-Ohio-2285) (Keeley IIA; remand and reconsideration on postconviction relief)
- Szefcyk v. State, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (res judicata and admissibility principles in postconviction context)