State v. Sturgill
2014 Ohio 5082
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Isome E. Sturgill Jr. was convicted by a jury and sentenced to an aggregate 13-year prison term for offenses arising from driving while intoxicated.
- On direct appeal he argued ineffective assistance for failing to stipulate to five prior OVI convictions; this court rejected that claim and affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- While the direct appeal was pending, Sturgill filed a postconviction petition alleging trial counsel failed to impeach a key witness (Samantha Fite) with a prior written statement about the amount of alcohol consumed; the trial court denied relief.
- Sturgill filed a supplemental postconviction petition alleging trial counsel failed to retain a toxicologist to rebut the state’s proof of intoxication; the trial court denied the supplemental petition after this court remanded for consideration.
- The trial court’s denials of the original and supplemental postconviction petitions were appealed; the appellate court affirmed, concluding the claims were barred by res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach a state's witness with a prior written statement | Sturgill: counsel should have used the witness’s prior statement to impeach her about number of drinks consumed, which would have affected credibility and outcome | State: the claim could have been raised on direct appeal and no new evidence outside the record was presented to overcome res judicata | Court: barred by res judicata; claim should have been raised on direct appeal and is not saved by any new outside-the-record evidence |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to retain a toxicologist to rebut intoxication evidence | Sturgill: counsel’s failure to retain an expert denied effective assistance and deprived the defense of scientific challenge to BAC conclusions | State: this is an ineffective-assistance trial claim that could have been raised on direct appeal and no competent outside-the-record evidence was produced to avoid res judicata | Court: barred by res judicata for same reasons; no qualifying new evidence was presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Hancock v. State, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (Ohio 2006) (discusses abuse-of-discretion standard and related principles referenced in postconviction review)