State v. Liles
2017 Ohio 240
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant-appellant Demond D. Liles pled guilty in 2014 to multiple counts of trafficking in cocaine and was sentenced; his direct appeal was affirmed.
- In January 2016 Liles filed a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 seeking vacatur or a new trial/resentencing, alleging (1) equal-protection violation based on racially disparate sentencing by the sentencing judge, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) "outrageous government conduct" involving the county sheriff.
- Liles attached to his petition an affidavit, a letter requesting sentencing data from the Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction, the returned spreadsheet listing F1/F2 cases (race, sex, age, offense, priors, judge, sentence), and an older similar analysis for third-degree felonies.
- The State moved to dismiss; the trial court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing, commenting that Liles’s exhibits were inadmissible under Evid.R. 901 but nonetheless addressing the merits.
- Liles appealed, raising three assignments: (1) trial court erred applying Evid.R. 901 to petition exhibits; (2) trial court improperly treated the State’s motion to dismiss as summary judgment; (3) trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing because the petition stated substantive grounds (racial sentencing disparity and outrageous government conduct).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Liles) | Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of exhibits under Evid.R. 901 | Trial court erred in ruling Liles’s attached documents inadmissible | Trial court said exhibits failed Evid.R. 901 authentication | Court: Even if the evidentiary ruling was incorrect, trial court nonetheless considered exhibits and merits; error not prejudicial — assignment without merit |
| Whether consideration of petition attachments converted State’s motion to dismiss into summary judgment | Treating attachments and their credibility as factual matters improperly converted the motion | R.C. 2953.21 allows submission and consideration of affidavits and documentary evidence; considering attached documents does not convert the motion | Court: No conversion occurred; dismissal on merits was proper |
| Whether postconviction petition plausibly alleged equal-protection violation (racial sentencing disparity) to warrant evidentiary hearing | Spreadsheet and analyses show sentencing disparity by judge amounting to purposeful discrimination affecting Liles | Data lacked variables to show similarly situated comparators or purposeful discrimination; McCleskey standard requires proof of purposeful discrimination with discriminatory effect | Court: Dismissal affirmed — data insufficient to show purposeful discrimination or that comparators were similarly situated; no abuse of discretion in denying hearing |
| Whether "outrageous government conduct" claim required a hearing | Liles alleged sheriff borrowed money and used informant to target him; claimed was shocking and warrants hearing | Claim was known to Liles at plea/sentencing and could have been raised on direct appeal; barred by res judicata | Court: Claim barred by res judicata; denial of hearing proper |
Key Cases Cited
- McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (statistical disparities insufficient absent proof of purposeful discrimination)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)
- Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (postconviction relief hearing not automatic; trial court determines if substantive grounds exist)
- Keene, 81 Ohio St.3d 646 (burden to prove purposeful discrimination in equal protection claims)
- Cowan, 101 Ohio St.3d 372 (R.C. 2953.21(A)(5) permits alleging sentencing-pattern equal-protection claims but does not relax constitutional standards)