State v. Salyers, 2021 Ohio 2978

Background

On April 1–3, 2018, two‑year‑old J.S. was found unresponsive and later died; Gabriel Salyers (mother Wireman’s partner) admitted shaking J.S., applying abdominal pressure, and flicking his penis.
Salyers was indicted on multiple counts including murder; a jury convicted him of murder (R.C. 2903.02(B)) and related counts but acquitted on aggravated murder; trial court imposed an aggregate 31 years‑to‑life sentence.
New counsel raised ineffective‑assistance and evidentiary claims on direct appeal; this court affirmed the convictions in 2020.
In August 2020 Salyers filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging trial counsel was ineffective for (1) not consulting/retaining a medical expert, (2) failing to obtain/evaluate radiological records, and (3) failing to move under Daubert to exclude expert timing testimony; he attached 11 affidavits including a report from postconviction expert Dr. Matshes.
Trial court denied the petition without a hearing, finding res judicata barred many claims and, alternatively, that Salyers failed to show deficient performance or prejudice; this appeal followed and the appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Salyers)	Held
Whether petition is barred by res judicata	Many ineffective‑assistance claims were or could have been raised on direct appeal; new evidence is not credible or material	Affidavits and a postconviction expert report are evidence outside the record that could not have been raised on direct appeal	Not totally barred: some evidence (Dr. Matshes) was outside the record, so merits review required; but many claims were cumulative and barred
Whether counsel was ineffective for not consulting/retaining a medical expert	Trial counsel pursued a deliberate strategy and explored experts; decision not to call one was strategic and reasonable	Failure to retain an expert prevented development of alternate timelines and undermined ability to challenge State experts	No prejudice shown: record shows counsel investigated experts and pursued alternative‑suspect theory; expert proffer largely consistent with State’s conclusion of homicide
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain radiological images	Radiological images were not central to State experts’ opinions and State did not rely on them	Missing images would have prompted expert assistance and meaningful challenges to State experts	No prejudice shown: images not used by State; speculative that their presence would change outcome
Whether counsel should have filed a Daubert motion re: timing/lucid interval	Even if a lucid interval were possible, evidence shows Salyers had access to child and admissions supported guilt; Daubert likely would not change outcome	A successful Daubert challenge would have undermined timing testimony and shifted jury’s focus to Wireman	No prejudice shown: Dr. Matshes’s opinions did not establish that a lucid interval actually occurred and overall evidence still supported conviction; denial without hearing was not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (standards for postconviction petitions and affidavits; credibility considerations)
State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982) (counsel cannot be expected to argue his own ineffectiveness; effect on res judicata)
State v. Lentz, 70 Ohio St.3d 527 (1994) (ineffective‑assistance claims may be raised postconviction when same counsel represented on direct appeal)
Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. 263 (2014) (addressing prejudice from counsel’s failure to obtain expert assistance)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard)