State v. Martin, 2018 Ohio 3244

Background

David Martin was convicted of aggravated murder (death penalty), attempted aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and tampering with evidence; jury recommended death and trial court sentenced him to death plus 61 years on other counts.
On direct appeal the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed convictions and sentence.
Martin filed a postconviction petition under R.C. 2953.21 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during voir dire/jury selection and at the mitigation phase, asserting counsel failed to discover/present available childhood and gang‑related mitigation evidence and that the jury was partial.
The trial court reviewed the petition under R.C. 2953.21(D)/(E), found no substantive grounds for relief, granted the State summary judgment, and denied a hearing and discovery.
The Eleventh District affirmed, holding (1) res judicata barred issues already decided on direct appeal (voir dire claims), (2) alleged omitted mitigation was largely cumulative of evidence presented and did not show deficient performance or prejudice, and (3) no entitlement to discovery where the petition failed to plead operative facts justifying relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were voir dire/jury‑selection ineffective‑assistance claims cognizable in postconviction after adverse direct‑appeal ruling?	Martin: counsel’s voir dire failures denied effective assistance and impartial jury.	State: claims were litigated on direct appeal and are barred by res judicata.	Barred by res judicata; Ohio Supreme already rejected deficient‑performance and prejudice.
Did counsel render ineffective assistance by omitting additional childhood/gang mitigation evidence?	Martin: counsel discovered but failed to present witnesses and records that would have aided mitigation.	State: most mitigation themes (parental substance abuse, gang exposure) were presented; omissions were cumulative or tactical.	No; omitted evidence was cumulative, no deficient performance or prejudice shown.
Was Martin entitled to a postconviction evidentiary hearing?	Martin: petition and appended materials established prima facie constitutional violations requiring a hearing.	State: files and petition do not show operative facts creating substantive grounds; summary judgment appropriate.	No; trial court properly found no substantive grounds and denied a hearing.
Was Martin entitled to discovery in postconviction proceedings?	Martin: discovery needed to substantiate claims and prepare a meaningful hearing.	State: R.C. 2953.21 historically silent on discovery; petitioner offered no specific requests or necessary materials.	Denied as discretionary and unwarranted where petition failed to plead operative facts; request was speculative.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Martin, 151 Ohio St.3d 470 (2017) (direct appeal rejecting claims of deficient voir dire and prejudice)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (standards for dismissing postconviction petition without hearing when operative facts are not alleged)
State v. Johnson, 24 Ohio St.3d 87 (1986) (failure to present mitigating evidence does not automatically prove ineffective assistance; strategic choices permissible)
State v. Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514 (1997) (mitigation presentation is a matter of trial strategy)
State v. Elmore, 111 Ohio St.3d 515 (2006) (speculation that additional mitigation would change penalty insufficient)
State v. Broom, 146 Ohio St.3d 60 (2016) (no automatic right to discovery in postconviction proceedings; trial court discretion)
State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (appellate standard for reviewing postconviction rulings; abuse of discretion)
State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 (1980) (petition must allege operative facts showing lack of competent counsel and prejudice)
State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (1994) (postconviction review is narrow; res judicata bars claims raised at trial or on direct appeal)