State v. Montgomery
2014 Ohio 5756
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Caron Montgomery pled guilty to three aggravated murders (his girlfriend and her two children) and waived a jury; a three-judge panel convicted and imposed death after mitigation evidence and a mitigation phase proceeding.
- Montgomery later filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel (challenging the guilty plea, choice of a three-judge panel, and incomplete mitigation presentation) and disproportionality of the death sentences.
- The trial court (three-judge panel) denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
- Montgomery appealed, arguing the petition contained sufficient operative facts and exhibits to require an evidentiary hearing and limited discovery.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the petition alleged competent, relevant, material evidence outside the trial record and whether res judicata barred claims; it concluded an evidentiary hearing was warranted and reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Montgomery) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-conviction petition alleged sufficient operative facts to require an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance regarding the guilty plea and choice of a three-judge panel | The record and pleadings did not demonstrate entitlement to a hearing | Counsel acted unreasonably in advising plea and recommending a three-judge panel; additional facts (counsel’s conduct, mitigation not presented) are outside the record and require development | Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on these claims |
| Whether mitigation evidence was inadequately developed such that counsel was ineffective | The State maintained no hearing necessary because record did not show constitutional error outside what could have been raised at trial/appeal | Petition alleged available mitigation evidence not presented at sentencing that is outside the trial record and warrants hearing | Court found petition alleged sufficient operative facts to develop counsel’s reasons and mitigation at a hearing |
| Whether res judicata bars the post-conviction claims | The State argued claims could have been raised at trial/direct appeal and thus are barred | Montgomery argued supporting evidence is new, outside the trial record, and not previously available | Court applied res judicata standard but concluded the petition alleged evidence outside the record so res judicata did not mandate dismissal at this stage |
| Whether petitioner is entitled to discovery in post-conviction proceedings | State argued post-conviction petitioners are not entitled to discovery as a matter of right | Montgomery sought discovery to develop evidence supporting ineffective-assistance and mitigation claims | Court held discovery as in civil practice was not automatically warranted but remanded for an evidentiary hearing to develop factual claims (limited discovery not endorsed) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (post-conviction relief is a narrow statutory remedy and hearing not automatic)
- State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (Ohio 1994) (post-conviction relief is a collateral civil attack, not an appeal)
- State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1982) (trial court must ensure petitioner presents evidence sufficient to warrant a hearing)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata applies to post-conviction claims that were or could have been raised earlier)
- Perry v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (foundational res judicata principles applied in post-conviction context)
- State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 (Ohio 1980) (denial of automatic right to hearing in post-conviction proceedings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Pembaur v. Leis, 1 Ohio St.3d 89 (Ohio 1982) (abuse of discretion requires arbitrary or unconscionable action)