State v. Sapp, 2017 Ohio 1467

William K. Sapp was convicted in 1999 of multiple offenses including three counts of aggravated murder and was sentenced to death; convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and by the Ohio Supreme Court.
Sapp filed a petition for postconviction relief in 2001; the trial court denied it and later (in 2015) issued findings of fact and conclusions of law when the earlier decision was found to be undocketed.
Sapp relied on two affidavits alleging a stun-belt malfunction during the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing that caused an outburst in front of the jury and affected the jury’s perception; he also sought discovery and attempted to develop a claim of mental retardation/mental impairment.
The trial court ruled the stun-belt claim was barred by res judicata (evidence was in the record or available on direct appeal) and found the affidavits insufficient and partly contradicted by the record.
The court denied Sapp’s discovery requests as unnecessary and discretionary in postconviction proceedings, and rejected his attempt to develop a mental-retardation argument because available pretrial evaluations did not show mental retardation and thus were not new evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sapp)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether res judicata bars Sapp’s stun-belt claim	Stun-belt affidavits are evidence outside the record that justify relief	Issue was apparent from trial record/appeal; affidavits are self-serving and insufficient	Res judicata applies; affidavits insufficient — claim barred and denied
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying discovery in postconviction proceedings	Entitled to civil-rule-style discovery to develop juror reactions, grand jury, prosecutorial motive, proportionality	Civil discovery rules do not apply; discovery discretionary and not warranted here	Denial of requested discovery affirmed; trial court acted within discretion
Whether Sapp can develop a mental-retardation claim now and obtain discovery	Evolving standards bar execution of mentally retarded; needs discovery to develop evidence	Mental-retardation evidence (evaluations) existed pretrial and are not new; records do not show retardation	Claim barred by res judicata; available evaluations do not support mental retardation; discovery not required
Whether affidavits showing juror impact from courtroom disturbance warrant relief	Affidavits assert jury was influenced by stun-belt incident and that Sapp couldn’t testify as a result	Affidavits are conclusory/self-serving and contradicted by record; curative instruction given	Court reasonably found affidavits insufficient; no relief granted

State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (explains abuse-of-discretion standard for postconviction relief)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (defines abuse of discretion)
State v. Broom, 146 Ohio St.3d 60 (discovery in postconviction petitions lies within trial court discretion)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (standards for substantive grounds in postconviction relief)
Adkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of mentally retarded offenders)
State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (distinguishes mentally ill offenders from mentally retarded in death-penalty context)
State v. Pierce, 127 Ohio App.3d 578 (self-serving affidavits insufficient in postconviction proceedings)
State v. Kinley, 136 Ohio App.3d 1 (civil discovery rules inapplicable to postconviction proceedings)