State v. Tenney, 2021 Ohio 3676

Four defendants (Tenney, Metz, Browning, Bergant) were convicted after a bench trial of rape and kidnapping; sentences ranged from 15 to 31 years.
The Eighth District affirmed convictions but reversed consecutive sentences; the state's appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court is pending.
Appellants filed R.C. 2953.21 postconviction petitions alleging judicial bias based on an affidavit from appellate counsel who said the trial judge told her his wife said “you are not going to acquit those animals,” and the judge purportedly responded he would not.
The original trial judge recused from ruling; the state moved to compel the judge’s testimony to respond and the judge’s counsel sought a court order before the judge would testify; the trial court never ruled on that motion.
Without holding an evidentiary hearing or obtaining the judge’s testimony, the postconviction court granted new trials, citing the appearance of partiality; the state appealed.
The appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by granting relief without an evidentiary hearing and reversed and remanded for a prompt hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2953.21 required an evidentiary hearing before granting postconviction relief where allegations are disputed	State: statute/gatekeeping role requires a hearing when operative facts are disputed; prosecution needed trial judge testimony to respond	Appellees: the record and affidavits created an appearance of bias sufficient to grant relief without hearing	Court: trial court abused its discretion by granting relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing; remanded for hearing
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting petitions without a hearing even if permissible	State: granting without hearing was arbitrary and procedural error	Appellees: discretion permitted relief based on appearance of unfairness	Court: sustained state; trial court’s procedure was an abuse of discretion
Whether bond motions based on the postconviction grant were properly granted	State: bonds rested on an improperly granted petition and thus were erroneous	Appellees: bond appropriate after court found grounds for relief	Court: bond motions were premature/erroneous because the petition was improperly granted without a hearing

Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (postconviction relief is a narrow, statutory collateral remedy; petitioner must allege sufficient operative facts to warrant a hearing)
Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (trial court’s gatekeeping role and standard for postconviction review)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard explained)
Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 (postconviction hearing not automatically required for every petition)
Pankey, 68 Ohio St.2d 58 (petition subject to dismissal without hearing if insufficient operative facts)
State ex rel. Jackson v. McMonagle, 67 Ohio St.3d 450 (no requirement to hold an evidentiary hearing on every petition)
Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (outsider influence must not affect trial; decisions must be induced by evidence and argument in open court)