State v. Wesson, 2012 Ohio 4495

Wesson was indicted in 2008 on 13 counts involving murder, attempted murder, and robbery; he waived a jury and the case was tried by a three-judge panel.
The panel convicted him on multiple counts and sentenced him to death for aggravated murder, along with other prison terms for the remaining offenses.
Wesson filed a petition for postconviction relief in February 2010; the trial court denied relief and dismissed the petition; he timely appealed.
The appellate court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition without a hearing and did not abuse its gatekeeping role.
The court addressed various grounds for relief, many barred by res judicata or failing to show entitlement to relief, and affirmed dismissal.
The decision ultimately affirms the Summit County Court of Common Pleas’ judgment and denies Wesson postconviction relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the postconviction petition was properly dismissed without an evidentiary hearing	Wesson contends the petition had sufficient operative facts to merit a hearing	State argues gatekeeping discretion allowed denial without a hearing	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Whether Wesson should have been allowed discovery in postconviction proceedings	Wesson asserts a discovery right in postconviction relief	State argues no discovery right in postconviction proceedings	Discovery not required; petition properly denied
Whether cumulative errors require reversal/remand	Wesson urges cumulative error warrants relief	State argues no cumulative error established	Cumulative error claim rejected; relief denied

State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (postconviction gatekeeping and standard of review)
In re Gondor, 2006-Ohio-6679 (Ohio 2006) (gatekeeping function and abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata caution in postconviction relief)
State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (Ohio 2010) (res judicata and direct appeal scope in postconviction relief)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel (deficient performance and prejudice))
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (right to counsel in criminal cases)
State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 (2006) (mitigation strategy and appellate deferential review of counsel’s decisions)
State v. Campbell, 95 Ohio St.3d 48 (2002) (antisocial personality disorder considered in mitigation with limited weight)
Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15 (2010) (antipathy to ‘more evidence is better’ in mitigation strategy)
State v. Were, 2008-Ohio-2762 (Ohio 2008) (trial strategy in calling witnesses and mitigation)
Elmore v. Were, 111 Ohio St.3d 515 (Ohio 2006) (evidentiary considerations in mitigation)