State v. Simmonds, 2017 Ohio 2739

In July 2013, then-17-year-old Devonere Simmonds shot four people in separate incidents; three victims were killed or mortally wounded and one survived. Surveillance and other evidence led to his indictment and jury trial on multiple counts, including aggravated murder and firearm specifications.
Simmonds was bound over from juvenile court and tried as an adult; a jury convicted him on counts related to two victims (Ashgar and Rudd) and the court later merged certain counts and imposed consecutive sentences including life without parole plus 48 years.
During sentencing, defense counsel presented two psychological reports and argued mitigating facts related to Simmonds’ youth, upbringing, low education/IQ, and exposure to negative influences; no presentence investigation was ordered and sentencing proceeded shortly after conviction.
While his direct appeal was pending, Simmonds pleaded guilty in separate cases (Prater and Norvet shootings) and received concurrent sentences.
Simmonds filed a petition for postconviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to adequately investigate and present mitigation at sentencing; the trial court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding Simmonds failed to show substantive grounds for relief because he could not demonstrate prejudice under Strickland given the severity and circumstances of his crimes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to present robust mitigation for a juvenile facing life without parole is prejudice per se	Simmonds: failing to investigate/present mitigation at a “critical stage” (sentencing) for a juvenile life-without-parole case requires per se prejudice like in death-penalty mitigation	State: No statute or precedent requires death-penalty-style mitigation in juvenile LWOP cases; no per se rule of prejudice	Court: No per se prejudice; juvenile LWOP requires individualized consideration but not death-penalty procedures as a matter of law
Whether counsel was ineffective for inadequate mitigation investigation/presentation	Simmonds: counsel failed to develop/present evidence of youth, immaturity, influence, and potential for rehabilitation; this likely affected outcome	State: Counsel did present mitigating evidence; regardless, offenses were so egregious any additional mitigation would not have changed sentence	Court: Even assuming deficient performance, Simmonds cannot show Strickland prejudice—no reasonable probability the sentence would differ given the nature of crimes

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance standard)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (holds mandatory juvenile LWOP unconstitutional; requires individualized sentencing inquiry)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (interprets Miller as substantive rule: LWOP permissible only for the rare juvenile showing permanent incorrigibility)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (juvenile defendants subject to different Eighth Amendment treatment)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (prohibits LWOP for nonhomicide juvenile offenders)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio standard and discussion on mitigation and prejudice in capital cases)
State v. Johnson, 24 Ohio St.3d 87 (discusses presumption of prejudice from complete failure to investigate mitigation)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (postconviction standard: petitioner must present operative facts to warrant hearing)
State v. Long, 8 N.E.3d 890 (Ohio Supreme Court applying Miller/Montgomery framework to juvenile LWOP)