State v. Quinones
2016 Ohio 7225
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Andrew Quinones was convicted after a bench trial of multiple sex offenses against his then–10-year-old ex–sister‑in‑law; sentences were concurrent, including life with parole eligibility after 10 years for kidnapping.
- On direct appeal Quinones challenged trial counsel’s effectiveness (cross‑examination strategy, admission of certain testimony, and trial preparation); this court affirmed, finding no prejudice under Strickland.
- Quinones filed a postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance: (1) counsel’s strategy attacking the victim based on Quinones’s anatomy; (2) failure to exclude testimony commenting on credibility; and (3) poor trial preparation including being unprepared for voir dire and calling Quinones as a witness.
- The trial court denied the petition without a hearing, finding most claims barred by res judicata and Quinones’s affidavit self‑serving and insufficient to show prejudice; Quinones appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding Quinones failed to proffer evidentiary documents with sufficient operative facts to require a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Quinones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of postconviction petition without a hearing was erroneous | Trial court properly dismissed where Quinones failed to proffer evidentiary documents showing incompetence and prejudice | Trial court erred; Quinones alleged sufficient facts to show constitutional violation by counsel and thus required a hearing | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; Quinones failed to meet the Jackson/Cole proffer burden |
| Whether ineffective assistance claims already litigated on direct appeal are barred by res judicata | Res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal | Claims preserved on direct appeal are distinct or newly supported and thus not barred | Most ineffective‑assistance claims were barred by res judicata; appellate court applied Perry/Cole framework |
| Whether voir dire/unpreparedness is new evidence excusing res judicata | The voir dire claim was not new evidence of prejudice and should have been raised on direct appeal | Counsel was unprepared for voir dire after judge recusal and this prejudiced Quinones’ trial choice (bench v. jury) | Barred by res judicata; the record showed the matter was discussed and the claim lacked sufficient operative facts to show prejudice |
| Whether affidavit and proffered facts established Strickland prejudice | The affidavit was self‑serving and lacked corroborating operative facts showing a reasonable probability of different outcome | Affidavit and assertions about counsel’s tactics and preparation demonstrate counsel’s serious errors and resulting prejudice | Denial affirmed: petitioner did not present sufficient evidentiary documents to satisfy Jackson/Cole and Strickland prejudice requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 (1980) (petitioner must proffer evidentiary documents with sufficient operative facts to obtain a postconviction hearing)
- State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982) (evidence outside the record and unavailable for direct appeal may avoid res judicata)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata bars postconviction claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)