In re B.W.

Summary

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of B.W.’s petition for postconviction relief following a juvenile delinquency adjudication for rape. The court held that B.W. did not establish substantive grounds for ineffective-assistance claims based on counsel’s advice regarding his right to testify or a proposed plea agreement.

Holdings

1. B.W. did not present sufficient operative facts establishing substantive grounds for ineffective assistance because he did not allege coercion, lack of knowledge of his right to testify, or that he wanted to testify but was prevented from doing so. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition without a hearing.
2. B.W. did not present sufficient operative facts establishing prejudice from counsel's alleged failure to explain the plea offer. His assertion that he would have accepted a gross-sexual-imposition disposition conflicted with his repeated denial that he had used force or compelled S.K., and the trial court acted within its discretion in finding his affidavits insufficiently credible to warrant a hearing.
3. A petitioner is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The trial court may deny the petition without a hearing when the petition, affidavits, documentary evidence, and trial record do not demonstrate sufficient operative facts establishing substantive grounds for relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying B.W.'s postconviction petition without a hearing on his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him to testify.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying B.W.'s postconviction petition without a hearing on his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to communicate the significance of the pretrial plea offer.

Disposition

affirmed