Opinion ID: 5648768
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: There and Back Again

Text: Back in state court, Cunningham filed a second state postconviction petition and a motion for a new trial. He raised his second juror-bias claim in both documents and requested discovery, an investigator, an evidentiary hearing, and permission to file the delayed motion. R. 188-1 (2018 Postconviction Pet. at 1) (Page ID #2828); R. 209-1 (Mot. New Trial at 1) (Page ID #11342). The Allen County Court of Common Pleas denied relief, and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed. The state appellate court ruled that Cunningham was not “unavoidably prevented” from discovering the facts underlying his second juror-bias claim. State v. Cunningham (Cunningham III), 65 N.E.3d 307, 312–15, 317–18 (Ohio Ct. App. May 23, 2016). The appellate court thus concluded that Ohio Revised Code Annotated § 2953.23(A) and Ohio Criminal Rule 33 barred Cunningham’s new filings. See id. at 314–15, 317–18. The Ohio Supreme Court declined review. State v. Cunningham, 77 N.E.3d 987 (Ohio 2017) (Table). Deferring to the state court’s “unavoidably prevented” analysis, the district court found that Cunningham procedurally defaulted his second juror-bias claim. See Cunningham v. Shoop, No. 3:06 CV 167, 2019 WL 6897003, at –12 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 18, 2019). Cunningham appealed the district court’s decision, and we granted his motion to reinstate his initial appeal. CA6 No. 11-3005 R. 187 (7/28/20 Order at 2). Nos. 11-3005/20-3429 Cunningham v. Shoop Page 9