State v. Sands
2013 Ohio 2822
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Sands was convicted in 2006 of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity and multiple conspiracies to commit aggravated murder and arson, with related sentences totaling 20 years to be served consecutively.
- The convictions arose from a plot to murder local officials and a prosecutor in Painesville, Ohio.
- He appealed and the appellate court affirmed; the Ohio Supreme Court denied a delayed appeal.
- In August 2011 Sands filed a postconviction-relief petition under R.C. 2953.21 in the trial court, which denied the petition as untimely.
- Sands’ postconviction petition asserted four ineffective-assistance theories—on appeal, trial, and sentencing counsel—and sought relief under R.C. 2953.21.
- The Lake County Court of Common Pleas ultimately denied relief as untimely, procedurally improper, or res judicata, and the Eleventh District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sands’ postconviction petition was timely and properly, and whether any exceptions apply | Sands | Court correctly applied timing rules and exceptions | Yes; petition untimely, no valid exceptions; affirmed |
| Whether appellate counsel’s effectiveness is cognizable in postconviction relief | Sands | Appellate-counsel ineffectiveness not cognizable in 2953.21 | Waived; not cognizable in postconviction relief |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate alibi witnesses | Sands | Res judicata bars claims not raised on direct appeal | Barred by res judicata; merits rejected on direct appeal |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective at sentencing for failure to merge allied offenses | Sands | Merger argument previously decided against Sands | barred by res judicata; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (establishes res judicata and finality principles in postconviction)
- State v. Love, 2007-Ohio-6256 (Ohio 2007) (ineffective-assistance claims on postconviction are not cognizable)
- Cool v. Turner, 135 Ohio St.3d 185 (2013-Ohio-85) (habeas corpus res judicata barred successive appellate review)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (ineffective assistance when plea rejection affected trial outcomes)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (ineffective assistance regarding plea offers)
- State v. Sands, 2008-Ohio-6981 (Ohio 2008) (direct-appeal discussion of trial-counsel issues and merger rulings)