State v. Williams
Decision Date | 01 July 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 58782,58782 |
Citation | 600 N.E.2d 298,74 Ohio App.3d 686 |
Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WILLIAMS, Appellant. * |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Pros. Atty., and Karen L. Johnson, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Scott Z. Jelen and Pamela A. Conger, Asst. State Public Defenders, for appellant.
The petitioner-appellant, Lewis Williams, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.
On October 7, 1983, Williams was tried in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and found guilty by a jury on one count of aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01, and the accompanying specification under R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) of having committed the aggravated murder in the course of committing aggravated robbery. The jury also found Williams guilty of aggravated robbery under R.C. 2911.01 as well as the firearm specification contained in R.C. 2929.71.
On October 16, 1983, the jury recommended that Williams be sentenced to death. On November 16, 1983, the trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Williams to death. The convictions and sentence were affirmed by this court. State v. Williams (Oct. 25, 1984), Cuyahoga App. No 47853, unreported, 1984 WL 5289. The convictions and sentence were also affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court. State v. Williams (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 16, 23 OBR 13, 490 N.E.2d 906. Williams was denied certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
On April 4, 1986 and June 27, 1986, Williams filed pro se petitions for post-conviction relief which were denied.
On November 20, 1987, Williams, through counsel, filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. In October 1989, the trial court filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law, denying Williams' petition for post-conviction relief. No evidentiary hearing was held. Williams filed a timely notice of appeal.
The Supreme Court of Ohio summarized the relevant facts as follows:
State v. Williams, 23 Ohio St.3d at 17, 23 OBR at 14-15, 490 N.E.2d at 908-909.
Appellant's first assignment of error states:
"The trial court erred in summarily dismissing appellant Williams' post-conviction petition without according him an evidentiary hearing."
Williams contends that the trial court should have granted him an evidentiary hearing on his petition for post-conviction relief for the following reasons 1) he raised constitutional errors outside the record, (2) the trial court used the wrong legal standard to determine whether the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel was prejudicial, and (3) the trial court did not have the transcript before it when it dismissed his petition.
R.C. 2953.21 states in part:
In State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107, 111, 18 O.O.3d 348, 350-351, 413 N.E.2d 819, 822-823, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated:
Generally, the petitioner satisfies his initial burden by submitting evidence of matters outside the record concerning ineffective assistance of counsel. Such presentation of evidentiary documents is sufficient, if not to mandate a hearing, at least to avoid dismissal on the basis of res judicata. State v. Cole (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 112, 114, 2 OBR 661, 663-664, 443 N.E.2d 169, 171-172. However, in his petition for post-conviction relief, Williams submitted a mass of affidavits and exhibits which were received by the trial court. As stated by the trial court in its detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, such evidentiary materials did not form a basis for any substantive grounds for relief. 1
Our review indicates that Williams' petition did not provide substantive grounds for relief and that he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing in view of the overwhelming evidence in the record of trial counsel's competence.
Williams also asserts that the trial court applied the incorrect standard in dismissing his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the mitigation phase. He contends that the trial court applied an outcome-determinative test in ruling...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Michael Goodwin, 97-LW-0746
... ... reflects that the statutory language was repeated to the ... jury. The trial court never referred to "principal ... offender" and "prior calculation and design" ... as separate, independent aggravating circumstances. Cf ... Penix, supra ... See State v. Williams (1996), ... 74 Ohio St.3d 569. The jury instructions adequately conveyed ... to the jury that appellant was to be found guilty of one of ... the alternatives of R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) ... The ... state's theory of the case was that appellant was the ... ...
-
Goodwin v. Johnson
...cruel aggravated murder in the course of an aggravated robbery.’ ” Id. at *6 (quoting and discussing State v. Williams, 74 Ohio App.3d 686, 600 N.E.2d 298, 303 (1991)). The court thus concluded that the failure to present mitigation evidence during the penalty phase did not result in prejud......
-
State v. Samatar
...strategy and, absent a showing of prejudice, does not deprive a defendant of effective assistance of counsel. State v. Williams (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 686, 694, 600 N.E.2d 298. Further, the failure to call an expert and instead rely on cross-examination does not constitute ineffective assis......
-
State v. Treesh
...be second-guessed by reviewing courts in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel." (Citations omitted.) State v. Williams (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 686, 697, 600 N.E.2d 298, 305. Regardless, Treesh again fails to demonstrate how the failure to order the reports prejudiced Third, Treesh ar......