State v. Lacy, 2020 Ohio 1556

Defendant Javonte R. Lacy was convicted by a jury of two counts of second‑degree felony heroin trafficking based on two controlled buys (confidential informant testimony, recorded buys, and surveillance testimony).
Before sentencing Lacy moved for a new trial alleging trial counsel had a conflict of interest because the same attorney also represented Lacy’s brother Jonah; Lacy attached his own affidavit saying Jonah would have testified he, not Lacy, sold the heroin.
The trial court denied the new‑trial motion as not credible; this court affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Lacy, finding the recordings and ID evidence strongly supported Lacy’s guilt.
Lacy later filed a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21, attaching new affidavits from Jonah and sister Janea reiterating that Jonah could have testified and that counsel prevented him from doing so.
The trial court denied the petition as barred by res judicata because the affidavits contained no new evidence dehors the record and the issue had been raised and decided earlier; Lacy appealed.
This court affirmed, holding the affidavits were cumulative, not materially new, Lacy failed to show an actual conflict of interest, and he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lacy)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Lacy's petition for postconviction relief is barred by res judicata	Affidavits from Jonah and Janea are evidence dehors the record unavailable at earlier stages, so claim of ineffective assistance based on failure to call Jonah is not barred	Affidavits contain information that was available and cumulative of evidence already presented; claim could and was raised earlier	Petition barred by res judicata; affidavits not new/de hors the record, so relitigation precluded
Whether Lacy was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his petition	Affidavits materially advance claim of counsel conflict and ineffective assistance such that an evidentiary hearing is warranted	Affidavits are cumulative, do not meet the cogency threshold to materially advance claim; no showing of actual conflict or plausible alternative strategy	No evidentiary hearing required; trial court did not abuse discretion; no actual conflict shown and counsel’s decision deemed trial strategy

State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (describes the trial court's gatekeeping role in postconviction proceedings)
State v. D'Ambrosio, 73 Ohio St.3d 141 (1995) (res judicata bars claims raised or that could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (origin of Ohio's rule precluding relitigation of claims after conviction)
State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982) (postconviction relief requires evidence dehors the record to avoid res judicata)
State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (2001) (trial counsel's witness‑calling decisions are strategic and generally not second‑guessed)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (Sixth Amendment requires demonstration that an actual conflict adversely affected counsel's performance)
State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St.3d 180 (1998) (actual conflict standard and requirement to show adverse effect)
State v. Gillard, 78 Ohio St.3d 548 (1997) (distinguishes possible vs. actual conflicts in joint representation)
State v. Manross, 40 Ohio St.3d 180 (1988) (definition of conflicting interests for attorneys)
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Grelle, 14 Ohio St.2d 208 (1968) (attorney must not represent clients with incompatible interests)
State v. Dillon, 74 Ohio St.3d 166 (1995) (right to counsel includes conflict‑free representation)