State v. Lawrence, 2019 Ohio 2788

In Oct. 2016, Dustin Trevino Lawrence was indicted for multiple sexual offenses against S.K., a minor living in the home; after a three-day jury trial he was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate mandatory 33 years; his direct appeal remained pending.
In Aug. 2018 Lawrence filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging due-process violations and ineffective assistance of counsel, attaching BCI materials and articles challenging Y-STR DNA testing.
He also moved for postconviction discovery seeking DNA-related materials to support his ineffective-assistance claim.
The trial court granted relief only as to sentencing (ordering a new sentencing hearing) but denied the petition and the discovery motion, finding res judicata, insufficient operative facts, lack of good cause, and that the request was speculative.
Lawrence appealed; the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of postconviction relief and discovery, holding counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy and that the totality of evidence (victim testimony, clinical findings, corroboration) foreclosed a reasonable probability of a different verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on the postconviction petition asserting ineffective assistance of counsel	Lawrence: trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and present expert attack on Y-STR DNA, supported by documents outside the record, so an evidentiary hearing was required	State: Lawrence failed to allege sufficient operative facts; counsel’s decision to cross-examine rather than call an expert was a tactical choice; the totality of evidence negates prejudice	Court: No abuse of discretion; petition lacked sufficient operative facts; counsel’s conduct was reasonable strategy and no reasonable probability of a different outcome
Whether the court abused discretion by denying postconviction discovery for DNA materials	Lawrence: discovery was necessary to develop proof of ineffective assistance regarding DNA testing	State: statutory discovery for postconviction relief is limited; Lawrence failed to show operative facts or good cause to warrant discovery	Court: Denial affirmed; statute’s discovery provision for capital cases inapplicable; petitioner failed to show operative facts or good cause

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (postconviction relief is a collateral civil attack, not an appeal)
State v. Foust, 105 Ohio St.3d 137 (Ohio 2004) (DNA statistics admissible if relevant; reliability goes to weight)
State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 (Ohio 2011) (trier of fact assesses DNA evidence reliability based on expert testimony)
State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72 (Ohio 1995) (strategic and tactical trial decisions generally do not support ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Nicholas, 66 Ohio St.3d 431 (Ohio 1993) (failure to call an expert and relying on cross-examination is not per se ineffective assistance)
State v. Hartman, 93 Ohio St.3d 274 (Ohio 2001) (same principle regarding expert testimony and counsel performance)
State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (Ohio 2006) (definition of abuse of discretion)