State v. Kareem Jackson
| Decision Date | 27 June 2002 |
| Docket Number | 01AP-808,02-LW-2738 |
| Citation | 2002 Ohio 3330 |
| Parties | State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kareem Jackson, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Joyce S. Anderson, for appellee.
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and Richard J. Vickers, for appellant.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Kareem M. Jackson, was convicted in 1998 of aggravated murder with death penalty specifications kidnapping, aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery. Appellant was sentenced to death. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal, where appellant was represented by different counsel. See State v Jackson (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 436. Appellant now appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for postconviction relief.
{¶2} The evidence at trial demonstrated that, in the early morning hours on March 25, 1997, Malaika Williamson drove appellant Michael Patterson, Derrick Boone and a man known as "Little Bee" to an apartment where the men had planned to commit a robbery. Antorio Hunter, Terrance Walker Nikki Long and Becky Lewis were inside the apartment. Appellant and Little Bee knocked on the door, and Hunter invited them inside. Appellant and Little Bee purchased some marijuana.
{¶3} After the purchase, Patterson and Boone burst into the apartment armed with shotguns. The men searched the apartment for drugs and money. Lewis testified that appellant struck her in the head with a handgun and led her into the kitchen, where she and Long waited until the perpetrators left the apartment. Boone testified that appellant ordered Hunter and Walker to lie face down next to each other on the living room floor. According to Boone, appellant stated that he had to kill Hunter and Walker because they knew his name. Boone testified that appellant shot each man in the back of the head. Three days after the shootings, appellant's girlfriend, Ivana King, told police that appellant admitted he had "done two people."
{¶4} On April 19, 1999, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to R.C. 2953.21. In his petition, appellant presented 26 grounds for relief, summarized as follows:
{¶5} Appellant attached numerous affidavits in support of his postconviction petition. Several experts provided opinions. Joann Jolstad, an attorney with experience defending death penalty cases, provided a critique of appellant's trial team. Dr. Harvey Shulman, a member of the psychology faculty at the Ohio State University, provided his opinion about the shortcomings in the eyewitness testimony offered at trial by Becky Lewis and Nikki Long. Dr. Hugh Turner, a psychologist, concluded that appellant's cognitive, emotional and cultural development were poorly represented to the jury. Dr. Whittaker, also a psychologist, testified by affidavit about the influence of cultural factors upon appellant. Dorian Hall, a social worker, opined that the mitigation evidence would have been stronger if it included additional witnesses who could have corroborated information, added details and provided psychosocial history information. Kathleen Burch, a psychologist who had been retained to provide a psychological assessment in support of the mitigation proceedings, opined that she might have been able to obtain a valid and comprehensive understanding of appellant if she had more time to establish a relationship with him.
{¶6} Appellant also attached to his postconviction petition affidavits from fact witnesses. Ivana King, the witness who rented the apartment in which guns were found, testified by affidavit that, had she been asked at trial, she would have testified that Derrick Boone knew where to find a key to her apartment. William Woods, appellant's cousin, stated by affidavit that he could have testified that Ivana King was very jealous of appellant's interactions with other women. James Cahill, a juror at appellant's trial, stated by affidavit that: (1) appellant's trial counsel did not clearly convey that Boone had a spare key to the apartment where some of the guns were found; (2) trial counsel did not present mitigation evidence on a variety of subjects; and (3) Juror Huddle informed the other jurors during the trial that she had discovered that her garage door was open and two men were standing in her driveway. Connie Smith, appellant's aunt, testified that, when she met with appellant's trial team prior to appearing as a mitigation witness, the trial team did not explain how she should testify. Appellant's parents, Robbie Jackson Ellison and Michael Taylor, likewise testified by affidavit that they were not instructed by appellant's trial team about the specifics of their mitigation testimony.
{¶7} On June 18, 2001, the trial court denied appellant's petition for postconviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The trial court expressly denied appellant's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, and 19th grounds for postconviction relief on the basis that appellant had not established that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied appellant's 6th, 7th, 8th, 18th and 19th grounds for relief for the additional reason that those grounds are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The trial court denied appellant's 16th and 17th grounds for relief based upon its conclusion that appellant had not provided evidence of misconduct by Juror Maureen Huddle or by any other juror.
{¶8} Appellant now asserts the following assignments of error:
{¶9} A postconviction proceeding "is not an appeal of a criminal conviction but, rather, a collateral civil attack on the judgment." State v. Calhoun (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 281. In order to obtain postconviction relief, appellant must demonstrate that "there was such a denial or infringement of [his] rights as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States." R.C. 2953.21(A)(1).
{¶10} We consider simultaneously appellant's first and second assignments of error thereby addressing all the arguments pertaining to each ground for relief.
{¶11} By his...
To continue reading
Request your trial