State v. Martin, 2018 Ohio 3505

Defendant Michael J. Martin was convicted after a jury trial for two counts of murder, related firearm specifications, felonious assault counts, discharging a firearm near a prohibited premises, improper handling of a firearm, and, after a bench trial, having weapons while under disability; aggregate sentence 30 years to life.
The shooting occurred after the victim Gary Tisdale approached a parked car occupied by Lisa Busbee and Martin; witnesses testified Tisdale was not threatening and had no gun when Martin shot him through an open sunroof. Martin testified he shot in self-defense/defense of Busbee, claiming Tisdale threatened them and displayed a gun.
Martin’s direct appeal challenged weight of evidence, jury instructions on self-defense/castle doctrine and trial counsel’s effectiveness; the convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Approximately seven weeks after the direct appeal decision, Martin filed a petition for post-conviction relief asserting ineffective assistance for failure to impeach State witnesses (Busbee and Soles) with alleged prior inconsistent statements to police, and prosecutorial misconduct for not correcting those statements. He appended only a bare affidavit and no police reports or recorded statements.
The trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing; the appellate court affirmed, finding Martin failed to submit evidentiary materials showing operative facts that would entitle him to relief or a hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Martin’s post-conviction claims	State: prior direct-appeal ineffective-assistance claims preclude re-litigation	Martin: relies on evidence outside the record (prior statements), so res judicata does not bar post-conviction review	Not barred; res judicata inapplicable where claims rest on out-of-record evidence
Whether counsel was ineffective for not impeaching Busbee and Soles with alleged prior inconsistent statements	Martin: counsel should have used police statements to impeach witnesses; failure prejudiced his defense	State: Martin produced no police reports or recordings to show the alleged prior statements; many alleged inconsistencies are immaterial or would have favored defense	Denied — Martin failed to submit evidentiary materials showing operative facts or a reasonable probability of a different outcome
Whether prosecutors committed misconduct by failing to correct allegedly false testimony	Martin: prosecutor allowed witnesses to testify inconsistently/perjuriously	State: no evidence that witnesses knowingly lied or that prosecutor knew of perjury; Martin provided no supporting evidence	Denied — no evidentiary support for misconduct claim; trial court did not abuse discretion

State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (post-conviction relief is a collateral civil attack and not an appeal)
State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (1994) (post-conviction Petitions are governed by R.C. 2953.21 and are not constitutional rights)
State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 (1980) (petitioners must submit evidentiary documents showing operative facts to merit a hearing)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (petition may be denied without hearing if record and petition do not demonstrate sufficient operative facts)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (res judicata bars relitigation of matters that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio adoption of Strickland test)
State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516 (1992) (strategic choices by counsel generally do not constitute ineffective assistance)
State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (2006) (abuse of discretion standard explained)