State v. Rodano
2017 Ohio 8221
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In November 2013 Rodano obtained fire insurance and five weeks later his house burned; he claimed an accidental candle fire.
- ATF Agent Joanna Lambert initially reported the fire as incendiary but later revised her opinion to "undetermined."
- A grand jury indicted Rodano on four aggravated-arson counts and one insurance-fraud count; one aggravated-arson count was later dismissed.
- At trial several witnesses testified Rodano made incriminating statements; the ATF agent testified about her revised opinion; the state fire marshal did not testify and his report was excluded by motion in limine.
- A jury convicted Rodano of three counts of aggravated arson and one count of insurance fraud; he received a six-year sentence.
- Rodano filed an App.R. 26(B) application arguing appellate counsel was ineffective for not (1) arguing trial counsel should have moved to dismiss indictments tainted by false evidence and (2) raising a Confrontation Clause claim regarding the fire marshal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue trial counsel should have pursued a motion to dismiss indictments allegedly based on materially false evidence | Appellee (State) contended the prosecution’s evidence was tested at trial and any grand-jury irregularity did not prejudice the defendant | Rodano argued indictments were undermined when ATF agent revised opinion and trial counsel should have moved to dismiss; appellate counsel should have raised ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim | Denied — court found appellate counsel raised related grand-jury argument, appellate strategy not unreasonable, and no prejudice shown because the revised ATF opinion was presented and tested at trial |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Confrontation Clause claim based on the excluded fire marshal report | State pointed out the fire marshal’s report was not admitted and the marshal did not testify | Rodano argued exclusion of the marshal’s testimony/report implicated his confrontation rights | Denied — report was excluded and not admitted; limited references were through a witness who testified and was cross-examined, so no Confrontation Clause violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (appellate counsel may winnow issues; not required to raise every colorable claim)
- State v. Allen, 77 Ohio St.3d 172 (Ohio reaffirming Barnes principles for appellate counsel)
- Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (grand jury prejudice/standards concerning improperly supplied information)