State v. Pickens
60 N.E.3d 20
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Mark Pickens was convicted in 2010 of three counts of aggravated murder and sentenced to death; Ohio Supreme Court affirmed in 2014.
- Pickens filed a postconviction petition under R.C. 2953.21 in 2011 and sought discovery and funding for neurological testing.
- The common pleas court heard the state’s motion to dismiss and Pickens’s discovery motions on October 31, 2012, took the matter under submission, and later overruled discovery.
- On December 5, 2012, the trial court issued an entry captioned “Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Entry Dismissing Petition to Vacate.”
- The record did not show that the state’s proposed findings were filed, served on Pickens, or solicited by the court, and Pickens was not given notice or opportunity to respond.
- The court of appeals held that the entry reflected an ex parte submission by the state, depriving Pickens of procedural due process and the court of the mandated deliberative process under R.C. 2953.21(C).
Issues
| Issue | Pickens' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court’s adoption of the state’s proposed findings without notice violated due process | Ex parte submission denied Pickens notice and opportunity to respond; deprived him of Fourteenth Amendment protections | The state asserted it "sua sponte" offered proposed findings with its motion and implied adoption was permissible | Yes. The court’s ex parte adoption without notice or opportunity to respond violated procedural due process |
| Whether R.C. 2953.21(C) authorizes delegation of the court’s duty to make findings | Court must itself engage in deliberative process and cannot delegate making findings when done ex parte | The state argued a court may adopt party-drafted findings and that R.C. 2953.21 differs from R.C. 2929.03(F) so Roberts is inapplicable | The deliberative process required by R.C. 2953.21(C) cannot be abdicated via ex parte communications; delegation that creates an ex parte process is impermissible |
| Whether Roberts v. Ohio (trial judge’s ex parte work with prosecutor on sentencing entry) controls postconviction entries | Roberts’ prohibition on ex parte drafting applies to any judicial function where ex parte influence undermines deliberation and impartiality | The state and some districts contended Roberts was limited to sentencing opinions and that postconviction proceedings differ | Roberts’ rationale governs here: ex parte communications that undermine confidence in the court’s deliberative process and deny notice are unacceptable |
| Whether the due-process violation was harmless | Pickens argued prejudice because denial of postconviction review affected his death sentences and could not be cured on appeal | State argued findings were adequate and any error harmless | The violation was not harmless; reversal and remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Roberts, 850 N.E.2d 1168 (Ohio 2006) (trial judge’s ex parte collaboration with prosecutor on death-sentence opinion undermined deliberative process and required vacatur)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due-process test requires notice and opportunity to be heard meaningful in time and manner)
- State v. Calhoun, 714 N.E.2d 905 (Ohio 1999) (dismissal entries must adequately address material and determinative issues to permit meaningful review)
- Sedlack v. Palm, 937 N.E.2d 642 (Ohio App. 2010) (applied Roberts to reverse where ex parte communication with counsel undermined impartiality)
- State v. Jackson, 941 N.E.2d 1221 (Ohio App. 2010) (discussed limits of Roberts in postconviction context and the need for notice when party-drafted findings are used)