Opinion ID: 2977058
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Procedural History—Post-Conviction

Text: In Mason I, we summarized the course of Mason’s state collateral attack on his conviction and sentence as follows: While his direct appeal was pending, Mason filed a state collateral attack in the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County, asserting seven assignments of error. State v. Mason, 1997 WL 317431, at  (Ohio Ct. App. June 6, 1997). On November 21, 1996, the court denied relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. Id. Mason appealed the dismissal of his post-conviction petition to the Court of Appeals for the Third Appellate District, which affirmed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas on June 6, 1997. Id. at . Mason then filed a timely appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal on October 15, 1997, as not involving any substantial constitutional question. On July 15, 1999, Mason filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising twenty-five challenges to his conviction and sentence. On May 9, 2000, the district court denied Mason’s habeas petition and his motion for an evidentiary hearing on various claims. Mason v. Mitchell, 95 F.Supp.2d 744, 795 (N.D. Ohio 2000). The district court subsequently granted a certificate of appealability as to all claims. Mason I, 320 F.3d at 613. Our decision in Mason I remanded Mason’s claim of ineffective assistance at the sentencing phase to the district court for an evidentiary hearing but otherwise affirmed the district court’s denial of Mason’s petition. D. The District Court’s Evidentiary Hearing on Remand The district court held an evidentiary hearing on December 29 and 30, 2003, and on January 6, 2004. The district court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Mason’s petition on October 31, 2005. Mason II, 396 F. Supp. 2d 837 (N.D. Ohio 2005). The district court provided a thorough summary of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing. Mason II, 396 F. Supp. 2d at 842-49, and we will discuss the evidence developed at that hearing as relevant to our analysis below. No. 05-4511 Mason v. Mitchell Page 5