State v. Webb

• Decision Date: 30 June 2014
• Docket Number: CASE NO. CA2014-01-013
• Citation: 2014 Ohio 2894
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL D. WEBB, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

2014 Ohio 2894

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL D. WEBB, Defendant-Appellant.

CASE NO. CA2014-01-013

COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY

FILED: June 30, 2014

OPINION

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case No. 90CR05505

D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas Horton and Judith Brant, 76 South Riverside Drive, 2nd Fl., Batavia, Ohio 45103, for plaintiff-appellee

Kimberly S. Rigby and Daniel P. Jones, 250 East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, Ohio 43215, for defendant-appellant

S. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Michael D. Webb, appeals from the decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial over two decades after he was sentenced to death for attempting to murder his entire family by dousing his house with gasoline and setting it on fire, killing his three-year-old son. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} In the early morning hours of November 21, 1990, Webb's three-year-old son, Michael ("Mikey") Patrick Webb, was killed in a fire at his Goshen, Clermont County, Ohio home. Following a jury trial, Webb was convicted of the aggravated murder of his son and sentenced to death. Webb was also convicted of several counts of attempted aggravated murder, as well as counts of aggravated arson and aggravated theft. The relevant facts leading to Webb's conviction have been stated repeatedly, most recently by the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Webb v. Mitchell, 586 F.3d 383 (6th Cir.2009). Those facts as stated by the Sixth Circuit are as follows:

Webb lived in a modest home in Goshen, Ohio, with his wife Susan, two teenage daughters, Tami and Amy, and two young sons, Charlie and Mikey. Early on the morning of November 21, 1990, Tami awoke in her basement bedroom to the smell of gasoline. Webb soon came into her room and told a frightened Tami that he smelled gasoline and that he thought someone had "rigged" the house. Without telling Tami to get out of the house, Webb proceeded upstairs while Tami hid under her covers.

Soon after Webb went upstairs, an explosion occurred on the main floor of the house, throwing Webb from the hall outside the master bedroom into the bathroom. Webb's wife and youngest son were asleep in the master bedroom at the time, and Mikey slept in his bedroom across the hall. Tami and Amy safely escaped the resulting fire through the exterior basement door as soon as they heard the explosion. Webb escaped the house by breaking through the bathroom window, cutting himself and bloodying his hands in the process. Firefighters rescued Webb's wife and youngest child from the master bedroom. Mikey died from smoke inhalation, apparently while hiding under his bed to seek refuge from the flames.

Law enforcement investigated the cause of the fire. Fire Chief Murphy discovered a plastic gasoline can from Webb's garage in the front foyer as well as a "very definite pour pattern or trailer" leading down the hallway from the foyer to the main floor bedrooms. From there, trailers led into both bedrooms, including over Mikey's bed to the rear wall of his bedroom. An unignited gasoline trailer also led downstairs to the basement, where gasoline had been poured on Tami's and Amy's beds. Several pieces of physical evidence linked Webb to the fire: a two-litersoda bottle containing gasoline found downstairs, which had Webb's fingerprints on it; Webb's partial bloody fingerprints on a matchbook outside, with the prints corresponding to the "peculiar way" Webb held a matchbook when lighting matches; and a plastic gas can from Webb's garage found in the foyer. Webb, it turns out, had a motive as well: He began an extramarital affair in 1990 and told his mistress he planned to leave his wife so he could be with her, and he had just finished draining $102,000 (plus interest) from his daughters' trust accounts within the past year, a theft that would be hidden by their deaths because he was their heir.

(Internal citations omitted.) Id. at 387-388.

{¶ 3} On direct appeal, this court overruled Webb's 26 assignments of error and affirmed his conviction and death sentence in State v. Webb, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA91-08-053, 1993 WL 181988 (May 24, 1993). The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed our decision in State v. Webb, 70 Ohio St.3d 325 (1994), and later denied Webb's motion for reconsideration in State v. Webb, 70 Ohio St.3d 1472 (1994). The United States Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari in Webb v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 1023, 115 S.Ct. 1372 (1995).

{¶ 4} Webb then filed a petition for postconviction relief, which this court denied in State v. Webb, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA96-12-108, 1997 WL 656312 (Oct. 20, 1997). The Ohio Supreme Court declined review of that decision in State v. Webb, 81 Ohio St.3d 1443 (1998). Webb also filed a motion seeking to reopen his direct appeal with this court, which was denied in State v. Webb, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA91-08-053 (July 7, 1998) (Entry Denying Application for Reopening). The Ohio Supreme Court later affirmed this court's decision denying Webb's motion to reopen his direct appeal in State v. Webb, 85 Ohio St.3d 365 (1999).

{¶ 5} Webb next filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. As part of his petition, Webb alleged the state violated his constitutional rights and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963), by failing to disclose purported exculpatory and material evidence to his defense counsel.After holding a hearing on the matter, the District Court denied Webb's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Webb v. Mitchell, S.D.Ohio No. 1:98-CV-766, 2006 WL 3333842 (Nov. 14, 2006). The Sixth Circuit subsequently affirmed the District Court's decision in Webb v. Mitchell, 586 F.3d 383 (6th Cir.2009), and the United States Supreme Court again denied certiorari in Webb v. Bobby, 559 U.S. 1076, 130 S.Ct. 2110 (2010).

{¶ 6} On February 26, 2013, over three years after the Sixth Circuit's decision denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and well over two decades after being sentenced to death, Webb filed a motion with the trial court requesting leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial alleging claims of prosecutorial misconduct, insufficient evidence, newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. After reviewing the extensive briefing and exhibits on the matter, the trial court denied Webb's motion without a hearing in an entry filed on December 30, 2013.

{¶ 7} Webb now appeals from the trial court's decision denying his motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial, raising three assignments of error for review. For ease of discussion, Webb's three assignments of error will be addressed together.

{¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 1:

{¶ 9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO GRANT WEBB A NEW TRIAL GIVEN THE EXISTENCE OF TWO ALTERNATIVE SUSPECTS AND NEWLY DISCOVERED FIRE SCIENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE TRIAL COURT THEORY AS TO THE FIRE'S POINT OF ORIGIN, THUS DENYING WEB HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL.

{¶ 10} Assignment of Error No. 2:

{¶ 11} THE STATE'S COMPOSITE FAILURES TO PROVIDE WEBB WITH MATERIAL EVIDENCE THAT POTENTIALLY COULD EXONERATE HIM DENIED HIM A FAIR TRIAL.

{¶ 12} Assignment of Error No. 3:

{¶ 13} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO GRANT WEBB A NEW TRIAL BASED UPON ADVANCES IN THE SCIENCE OF ARSON INVESTIGATIONS, THUS DENYING WEBB HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL.

{¶ 14} Under his three assignments of error, Webb argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial based on alleged "newly discovered" evidence of the existence of two alternative suspects resulting from the state's purported Brady violations. Webb also argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial in light of the new advances in so-called "fire science" which he alleges calls into question the state's theory regarding the origins of the fire presented at trial. According to Webb, when viewed either individually or when taken together, this supposed "new evidence" undermines the jury's verdict, thereby entitling him to a new trial.¹ We disagree.

The State Did Not Commit a Brady Violation Requiring a New Trial

{¶ 15} Initially, Webb argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial because the state committed a Brady violation in failing to provide his defense counsel with alleged exculpatory and material evidence. Specifically, Webb argues the state committed a Brady violation in failing to disclose: (1) a November 26, 1990 police report from the Goshen Township Police Department that referenced another potential suspect, Robert Gambrell, Webb's then teenage daughter Amy's former boyfriend; as well as (2) purported evidence from Jackie Allen, an acquaintance of Webb who, as a teenager, claims she provided evidence to the Miami Township Police Department shortlyafter the fire that an individual named "Bob" confessed to the crime as a paid hit man.

Standard of Review for New Trial Based on an Alleged Brady Violation

{¶ 16} Generally, "the decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and should not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion." State v. Nicholas, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-10-260, 2008-Ohio-628, ¶ 9, citing State v. Scheibel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990), paragraph one of the syllabus. However, "[s]ince the failure to disclose material, exculpatory evidence violates a defendant's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, an appellate court reviewing a trial court's resolution of a motion for a new trial claiming a Brady violation utilizes a due process analysis rather than an abuse of discretion...