State v. Smith
2017 Ohio 7659
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Thomas Smith was one of 22 defendants indicted in a multi-jurisdictional drug trafficking/conspiracy case; he was tried and convicted while most co-defendants pleaded guilty.
- After a jury trial Smith was convicted on multiple counts and originally sentenced to an aggregate 40 years (later reduced to 32 years on remand).
- Smith filed an R.C. 2953.21 petition for postconviction relief, alleging the sentence disparity with his co-defendants showed the trial court imposed a vindictive "trial tax" for exercising the right to trial.
- Smith supported his petition with sentencing entries, a summary chart of all defendants, and co-defendants’ criminal histories.
- The trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, concluding the claim was barred by res judicata and, alternatively, lacked merit. Smith appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith’s sentence was a vindictive "trial tax" because it was harsher than co-defendants who pled guilty | Sentence disparity vs. co-defendants shows punishment for exercising right to trial | Claim is barred by res judicata; sentencing entries were available at time of sentencing and do not constitute newly discovered evidence | Court held res judicata bars the claim and rejected the trial-tax argument |
| Whether Smith was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction petition | A hearing was required to explore alleged vindictive sentencing and supporting out-of-record evidence | No substantive grounds shown under R.C. 2953.21(D); no prejudice established, so no hearing warranted | Court held no hearing required because petitioner failed to produce sufficient, newly discovered evidence showing constitutional prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (standard of review and postconviction relief framework)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (postconviction petitioner not automatically entitled to evidentiary hearing)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (res judicata bars issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- Perry v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata rule for criminal defendants)
- State v. Smith, 70 N.E.3d 150 (4th Dist.) (prior appellate decision remanding for resentencing on allied offenses)