Opinion ID: 795103
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Ohio Courts' Treatment of Counsel's Conduct

Text: 91 Despite the conduct of counsel and evidence suggesting that Petitioner's childhood was not as happy and normal as reported in the pre-sentence report, PSRI at 8, all of the Ohio courts determined that counsel's decision to forgo the presentation of mitigation evidence was strategic. See State v. Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514, 684 N.E.2d 47, 67 (1997); State v. Keith, 1998 WL 487044 (Ohio App. 3 Dist. May 1998); State v. Keith, 1996 WL 156710,  (Ohio App. 3 Dist. April 5, 1996); State v. Keith, No. 94-CR-0042 (Common Pleas Ct. of Crawford County Ohio Feb. 4 1998). They reasoned that mitigation evidence was inconsistent with Petitioner's claim of innocence at trial. Additionally, the Ohio Court of Appeals held that the evidence submitted in affidavit form by post-conviction counsel was merely duplicative of evidence contained in both Dr. Schonberg's report and the pre-sentence report. Thus, it held that counsel's failure to present mitigation evidence did not prejudice Petitioner.