State v. Myers
2021 Ohio 631
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- In January 2014, Austin Myers (age 19) and Timothy Mosley planned and committed the stabbing murder of Justin Back; Mosley later pleaded guilty and testified against Myers.
- Myers was convicted of aggravated murder and related offenses in 2014; the jury recommended death and the trial court imposed a death sentence, later affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court.
- While his direct appeal was pending, Myers filed a postconviction petition (PCR) raising numerous claims (including ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial and trial-court error, and constitutional challenges to the death penalty) and moved for broad discovery.
- The trial court denied discovery (finding the 2017 amendments to R.C. 2953.21 not retroactive or that Myers showed no "good cause") and dismissed the PCR without an evidentiary hearing, citing res judicata or insufficient operative facts.
- On appeal, the Twelfth District affirmed most dismissals but reversed as to specific penalty-phase ineffective-assistance claims concerning failure to present expert testimony on adolescent brain development and remanded for discovery and an evidentiary hearing limited to those claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability/retroactivity of amended R.C. 2953.21 discovery provision | Myers: amended statute (effective Apr. 6, 2017) applies to pending PCR litigation and authorizes discovery for capital petitioners showing "good cause." | State: statute not retroactive; therefore Myers not entitled to expanded discovery. | Court: statute is prospective but applies to petitions still being litigated when it took effect; Myers' petition was pending so the statute applies. |
| Standard for court action on PCR when state filed summary-judgment motion | Myers: trial court wrongly dismissed petition under R.C. 2953.21(D) despite a pending summary- judgment motion and should have applied Civ.R. 56 standards. | State: trial court may independently review the petition and records and may summarily dismiss under R.C. 2953.21(D). | Court: trial court may sua sponte grant summary dismissal under R.C. 2953.21(D) and was not required to apply R.C. 2953.21(E) standard simply because the state moved for summary judgment. |
| "Good cause" for discovery under amended R.C. 2953.21 | Myers: broad discovery was necessary to develop claims (ineffective assistance, mitigation, constitutional challenges about youth). | State: many requests were fishing expeditions or related to claims barred by res judicata. | Court: denied discovery for many requests as speculative, cumulative, or barred by res judicata; but found good cause and remanded limited discovery for penalty-phase IAC claims about adolescent brain-development experts. |
| Res judicata for constitutional challenges to death sentence based on age (extension of Roper) | Myers: new neuroscience and youth-development science warrant relitigation and possibly an extension of Roper v. Simmons to those >18 and <21. | State: such Eighth Amendment claims were or could have been raised on direct appeal; U.S. Supreme Court has drawn the line at 18 (Roper). | Court: claims barred by res judicata and precedent; Ohio and U.S. Supreme Court limits mean extension to 19–20-year-olds is not available—dismissed. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (late disclosure of notebook; social-media posts; courthouse audio) | Myers: nondisclosure and prosecutors’ public statements/perhaps overheard defense communications prejudiced trial and may reflect misconduct. | State: no evidence of prejudice; issues were known or could have been raised on direct appeal; social-media and post-trial statements irrelevant. | Court: dismissed misconduct claims for lack of operative facts, waiver/res judicata, and absence of demonstrated prejudice. |
| Ineffective assistance at penalty phase (failure to present expert testimony on adolescent brain development and related mitigation) | Myers: counsel failed to investigate, consult and present available experts (e.g., Drs. Hopes, Barzman, Davis) and failed to develop mitigation tied to his youth and mental health. | State: counsel made strategic choices; much evidence was presented or cumulative; mitigation strategy was reasonable. | Court: majority of penalty-phase IAC claims dismissed, but appellate court found Myers submitted sufficient operative facts for claims that counsel failed to present expert adolescent- brain-development testimony; remanded for discovery and an evidentiary hearing on those specific grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (Eighth Amendment barred death penalty for offenders under 18; Supreme Court drew the age line at 18)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997) (standard for good cause for discovery in habeas contexts; petitioner must show specific allegations that full development of facts may entitle relief)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel's duty to investigate and present mitigating evidence at sentencing)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (standards for summary dismissal of PCR petitions under Ohio law)
- State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 (2007) (retroactivity principles for Ohio statutes; two-step test)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (res judicata bars PCR claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (value of PCR evidentiary hearings to probe counsel's motivations and postconviction facts)
- State v. Herring, 142 Ohio St.3d 165 (2014) (counsel’s obligation in capital mitigation investigations and limits on entitlement to a mitigation specialist)