State v. Magwood, 2019 Ohio 5238

Incident: On August 20, 2016, the victim (T.J.) reported that Jonathan Magwood forced his way into a Taco Bell women's restroom and raped her; DNA and video surveillance corroborated sexual contact and that Magwood followed her into the restroom. Magwood claimed the sex was consensual.
Conviction and sentence: Magwood was convicted of three counts of rape and kidnapping with a sexual-motivation specification; sentenced to 22 years. Petty theft conviction later reversed on direct appeal; other convictions and sentence affirmed.
Postconviction petition: Magwood filed a petition alleging (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate the victim’s credibility and failing to present mitigation at sentencing, and (2) a Brady violation for the State’s alleged failure to disclose an internal affairs report about Detective Morris Vowell.
Hearing and evidence: At the postconviction hearing Magwood introduced a 2011 internal affairs report concerning Detective Vowell (charged then dismissed for misuse of a police computer); Magwood also referenced two police/ER reports involving the victim from 2011 and 2015.
Trial court ruling: The court denied postconviction relief, finding no ineffective assistance (strategy choices, inadmissibility, and no prejudice) and no Brady violation (IA matter not material to guilt; detective’s testimony not outcome-determinative). Appeal to this court affirmed the denial.

Issue	State's Argument	Magwood's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate victim (2011 & 2015 reports)	No deficiency shown; reports not clearly probative of truthfulness and may have been known or a strategic choice	Counsel failed to investigate/use reports to impeach victim’s credibility	Overruled: reports inadmissible under Evid.R.608(B), no proof counsel lacked knowledge, not clearly probative, no prejudice
Ineffective assistance — failure to present mitigation at sentencing	Mitigation presentation is trial strategy; additional detail would not have changed sentence	Counsel failed to present sufficient mitigation (mental health, childhood sexual abuse)	Overruled: tactical choice; court found no reasonable probability sentence would differ
Brady — nondisclosure of Detective Vowell internal affairs report	IA matter was public (news), not exclusively suppressed; not material to outcome; not Brady material	IA report would impeach detective’s integrity and should have been disclosed	Overruled: report not material to guilt, detective’s credibility irrelevant to verdict; no Brady violation

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory or impeachment evidence)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality standard: reasonable probability affecting outcome)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (no distinction between impeachment and exculpatory evidence for Brady purposes)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972) (impeachment evidence affecting witness credibility can be material)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (prosecution not to use false testimony and must correct known falsities)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (postconviction relief is not a second trial; standard and purpose explained)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (Ohio discussion of ineffective assistance review)
State v. Brown, 115 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio 2007) (undisclosed evidence is not material merely because it helps the defense)
State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 (Ohio 2012) (defendant bears burden to show undisclosed evidence was material or shown in bad faith)