State v. King
2022 Ohio 676
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Deny King was convicted by jury of aggravated murder, felonious assault, and having a weapon while under disability; sentence imposed February 2020 and affirmed on direct appeal.
- King filed an App.R. 26 application to reopen his appeal claiming appellate counsel was ineffective; that application was denied and the Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction.
- King filed a petition for post-conviction relief (Apr. 30, 2021) alleging trial counsel was ineffective (inadequate pretrial investigation; failure to retain a video expert) and asserting juror impropriety (jurors and victim’s family dining together).
- Trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, explaining the petition lacked evidentiary-quality materials, some claims were speculative, and several claims were barred by res judicata.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the court’s entry functioned as findings and conclusions, the petition failed the Calhoun/Church evidentiary threshold for a hearing, and res judicata barred matters that could have been raised earlier.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument (Plaintiff) | King (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law under R.C. 2953.21(H) | Entry’s text sufficiently explains the basis for denial; statutory requirement satisfied even without a formal label | Court failed to make explicit findings/conclusions as required | Affirmed — entry contains sufficient factual findings and legal analysis; complies with Mapson/Lester policy. |
| Whether King was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance claims (failure to investigate; failure to hire video expert) | Petition lacks evidentiary-quality materials; claims are speculative; self-serving affidavit insufficient; no reasonable probability of different outcome; claims could have been raised earlier (res judicata) | Counsel’s failures prejudiced defense; expert/video could have changed the verdict; hearing required to develop facts | Affirmed — no hearing. King failed to submit operative evidence showing substantial violation and prejudice; claims barred where they could have been raised on direct appeal. |
| Whether alleged juror contact (jurors dining near victim’s family) required a hearing or relief | Jurors were admonished and later denied any contact or influence; submitted photos/timeline unauthenticated; evidence available before appeal (res judicata) | Surveillance photos show jurors and victim’s family interacting; jury fairness compromised; hearing needed to investigate tampering | Affirmed — no hearing. Evidence unauthenticated and hearsay; jurors denied contact; claim could have been raised earlier and is barred by res judicata. |
| Whether the trial court properly exercised its gatekeeping role in declining an evidentiary hearing under R.C. 2953.21 | Trial court correctly applied Calhoun/Gondor standards; petitioner must present cogent evidentiary materials before a hearing is granted | Trial court erred in refusing to develop factual record at hearing | Affirmed — trial court rightly declined a hearing because petitioner failed to meet the minimum threshold of evidentiary-quality operative facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217 (1982) (purpose of findings is to apprise petitioner and appellate court of grounds for decision)
- State v. Lester, 41 Ohio St.2d 51 (1975) (findings and conclusions must be explicit enough to permit appellate review)
- State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris, 40 Ohio St.3d 19 (1988) (substance of an entry may satisfy statutory findings even if not labeled)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (petitioner must present evidentiary-quality materials showing operative facts to obtain a post-conviction hearing)
- State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (trial court has gatekeeping role in deciding whether to grant a post-conviction hearing)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata bars grounds which were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Kapper, 5 Ohio St.3d 36 (1983) (self-serving affidavits generally lack the required cogency to obtain relief)
- State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153 (1988) (law governing ineffective-assistance claims and prejudice analysis)