State v. McDougald
2016 Ohio 5080
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- McDougald was convicted by a jury of drug possession, trafficking, possession of criminal tools, and possession of a firearm while under disability; he received an aggregate 20-year sentence in 2007.
- Key trial evidence: testimony from co-occupant Kendra White and several buyers placing McDougald at the residence with drugs and a pistol; digital scales and cocaine were recovered at the scene.
- McDougald pursued direct appeal (unsuccessful) and multiple postconviction petitions; this appeal concerns his fifth petition filed in Nov. 2015 and a contemporaneous motion for leave to file a motion for new trial.
- The fifth petition alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, impeach witnesses (including use of preliminary hearing testimony and prior statements), challenge firearms testimony, and subpoena BCI testimony timely; the new-trial motion claimed the State withheld a drug task force report with exculpatory material.
- The trial court denied the petition and motion as untimely and meritless; the appellate court affirmed, holding McDougald failed to establish unavoidable prevention for the late filing, failed the clear-and-convincing standard, and that res judicata barred the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of postconviction petition | Petition raised new ineffective-assistance claims; should be considered despite delay | Petition was filed >8 years after appeal deadline and is untimely under R.C. 2953.21 | Untimely; petitioner did not meet statutory exceptions, so court lacked authority to reach merits |
| Unavoidably prevented discovery (statutory exception) | New evidence (prelim hearing excerpt, BCI subpoena, police interview CD) prevented earlier filing | McDougald could have discovered or obtained evidence earlier with reasonable diligence | Not shown; petitioner failed to prove he was unavoidably prevented from discovering evidence |
| Res judicata / successive petition bar | Claims are new ineffective-assistance allegations meriting relief | Claims could have been raised on direct appeal or in prior petitions; successive petition barred by res judicata | Barred by res judicata; no exception applies (different counsel on appeal) |
| Motion for leave to file new trial (Brady/withholding) | State withheld a drug task force report that was materially exculpatory and would justify new trial | Motion filed >8 years after verdict; petitioner did not prove unavoidable discovery or materiality | Denied; petitioner failed to show unavoidable prevention or that report was material exculpatory evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoun v. State, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905 (Ohio 1999) (postconviction relief is a narrow statutory remedy)
- Gondor v. Richardson, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 860 N.E.2d 77 (Ohio 2006) (standard of review for postconviction relief findings)
- Cole v. State, 2 Ohio St.3d 112, 443 N.E.2d 169 (Ohio 1982) (res judicata bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- In re H. V., 138 Ohio St.3d 408, 7 N.E.3d 1173 (Ohio 2014) (definition of abuse of discretion)