Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
William Dean
WICKLINE
Classification: Murderer
Characteristics: Dismemberment - The bodies were never found
Number of victims: 3
Date of murders: 1979 / 1982
Date of arrest: 1984
Date of birth:
March 15,
1952
Victims profile: Charles Morgan Marsh
/
Peggy and Christopher Lerch
Method of murder: Stabbing
with knife
/ Strangulation
Location: West Virginia/Ohio, USA
Status:
Executed
by lethal injection in Ohio on March 30, 2004
Wickline and his girlfriend, Teresa Kemp, spent the night drinking
heavily and taking cocaine with Peggy and Christopher Lerch.
The
following morning, an argument began between Mr. Lerch and Wickline
over $6,000 owed to Wickline.
According to Kemp, Wickline went
upstairs and called for Mr. Lerch to help him. After a few minutes
Mr. Wickline came downstairs, and Ms. Kemp went to check on Mr.
Lerch, finding him dead in the bathtub with his throat slit.
She
came downstairs and was ordered by Mr. Wickline to hold the legs of
the sleeping Peggy Lerch while he strangled her.
Mr. Wickline is
thought to have cut up the bodies and disposed of them in dumpsters
throughout the city. No bodies were ever found.
Wickline was also indicted in West Virginia in April 1985 for the
November 1979 decapitation of Charles Morgan Marsh. That charge
remained pending at the time of his execution.
Citations:
State v. Wickline, Not Reported in N.E.2d (Ohio App. 1988) (Direct
Appeal). State v. Wickline, Not Reported in N.E.2d (Ohio App. 10 1994)
(PCR). Wickline v. Mitchell, 319 F.3d 813 (C.A.6 Ohio 2003)
(Habeas).
Final Meal:
Eight-ounce filet mignon, medium rare; potato salad; six rolls with
butter; fresh strawberries over shortcake; and butter pecan ice
cream. He also received four packs of Pall Mall cigarettes and six
cans of pop, including three of Mountain Dew.
Final Words:
"May tomorrow see the courts shaped by more wisdom and less politics."
ClarkProsecutor.org
Ohio Department of Corrections
Inmate #: 178066
Inmate: Wickline, William
Race: White
Gender: Male
DOB: 3/15/52
County of Conviction: Franklin
Date of Murder: 8/14/82
Received at DOC: 2/24/84 - Mansfield Correctional Institution.
Offenses: B & E, B & E (IN DAYTIME), B & E (IN DAYTIME), AGG MURDER,
B & E (IN DAYTIME), B & E (IN DAYTIME), GRAND THEFT, DRUG LAW
VIOLATION.
Convicted Killer Put To Death In Ohio
NewsNet5.com
March 30, 2004
LUCASVILLE, Ohio -- A man was executed Tuesday
for strangling an unconscious woman with a rope in 1982 after
slitting her husband's throat over a $6,000 drug debt.
The only
witness said the former prison slaughterhouse worker cut up the
bodies, which were never found.
William D. Wickline, 52, was the
11th inmate to die by injection since Ohio resumed executions in
1999. He was pronounced dead at 10:11 a.m. at the Southern Ohio
Correctional Facility.
"Carrying out the death sentence today in the
case of William Wickline is a fundamental duty that the State of
Ohio undertakes with the utmost gravity," Ohio Attorney General Jim
Petro said in a release. "The obligation is fulfilled only after
careful consideration and an extensive review of the case to ensure
the verdict and sentence are within the bounds of law. In this
matter, Mr. Wickline's case was reviewed by state and federal courts,
and at every level was found to be a fair and just result."
Wickline's final statement was, "May tomorrow see the courts shaped
by more wisdom and less politics."
Wickline slept about five hours Monday night and
visited with his brothers early Tuesday, said Andrea Dean,
spokeswoman for the state prison system. She said Wickline showered
and shaved, and had two cups of coffee and Rice Krispies cereal. He
then read the Bible and prayed.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to
block Wickline's execution. His attorneys argued that his trial
lawyers did not try to seek information that could persuade judges
to impose life imprisonment instead of death. The appeal was based
on a Supreme Court decision last year saying defense attorneys don't
need their client's cooperation to conduct such investigations. The
court turned down Wickline's appeal without comment.
A three-judge panel in 1985 convicted Wickline of
killing Christopher and Peggy Lerch in his Columbus apartment. The
Franklin County Common Pleas judges sentenced him to life in prison
for Christopher Lerch's murder and to death for the slaying of Mrs.
Lerch because she was killed to cover up another crime.
The couple, from Blendon Township north of
Columbus, was last seen in August 1982. Their bodies were never
found. Peggy Lerch's sister, Nancy Fowler, silently held a photo
toward the window into the death chamber throughout as soon as he
walked in, lowering it only after a corrections officer closed the
curtain. The photograph was not visible from behind. Wickline never
looked in her direction, instead smiling and giving a thumbs up to
his two younger brothers, Robert and David. The witnesses were
silent, except for occasional sniffling, for the entire 20 minutes
they were in the chamber.
Wickline denied killing the couple, portraying
the primary witness against him as a jealous, spurned lover who
invented a tale to keep custody of her then-infant son after
admitting drug use to authorities. Wickline's former girlfriend
testified he used a saw to butcher the bodies and had a friend help
him throw the bagged parts in trash bins around Columbus. Teresa
Kemp's story matched that of informants who didn't testify,
including Wickline's former common-law wife and a roommate, police
records show.
The physical evidence backing her story included
bloody tub caulk and dried human tissue on a folding saw, but
Wickline's attorneys argued that Kemp had possession of the evidence
while he was in prison on a burglary conviction.
Kemp testified that the four spent nearly two
days on an August 1982 weekend drinking, using cocaine and other
drugs. The party moved from the Lerches' house to Wickline's
apartment when a violent argument started over money. She said the
argument seemed over when Wickline called Chris Lerch to the
upstairs bathroom, slit his throat, then came downstairs and made
Kemp lie across Mrs. Lerch's legs while he strangled her. The next
time Kemp went upstairs, Wickline was in the bathroom holding the
severed head of Chris Lerch.
Kemp was never charged because she didn't
participate in killing Chris Lerch, didn't do much to help kill Mrs.
Lerch and prosecutors couldn't find evidence of intent to kill, said
Pat Sheeran, an assistant county prosecutor who helped try the case.
In Wickline's motion to stop the execution,
lawyer David Stebbins argued that Wickline's lawyers did not present
evidence of Wickline's history during the penalty phase of his trial
in an attempt to avoid a death sentence. However, the state argued
that Wickline was deeply involved in his case, said Kim Norris, a
spokeswoman for Petro. "He clearly was directing and in control of
his defense," she said. A message seeking comment was left for
Stebbins.
Wickline was moved from death row at the
Mansfield Correctional Institution on Monday morning. He spent most
of the day talking on the phone to his brother, David Wickline of
Columbus, or chatting with members of the execution team, prisons
spokeswoman Andrea Dean said. Dean said that about 4 p.m., Wickline
was served his "special meal" of an eight-ounce filet mignon, medium
rare; potato salad; six rolls with butter; fresh strawberries with
shortcake; and butter pecan ice cream. The steak came from the
prison kitchen. The other ingredients were bought at a local store
for $11.66. He also received four packs of Pall Mall cigarettes and
six cans of pop, including three of Mountain Dew.
Wickline met with a spiritual adviser, Rev. Gary
Sims, a Baptist minister who is the prisons department's religious
services administrator. He was laughing as he visited later Monday
with brothers David and Robert, who planned to witness the execution,
Dean said. After his brothers left, he continued to talk and laugh
on the phone with family and friends.
ProDeathPenalty.com
William D. Wickline, convicted of a 1982 murder-dismemberment
of a Columbus couple and charged in Wood County with the November
1979 murder-decapitation of Charles Morgan Marsh, has exhausted his
appeals and is scheduled for execution on March 30.
According to a
spokesman for the Ohio Supreme Court clerk's office, motions to set
Wickline's execution date were granted in December. Lethal injection
is the means of execution used in Ohio. According to records from
the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Wickline's last appeal was
denied in January.
Wickline was convicted by a three-judge court of
2 counts of aggravated murder in the death of a Columbus couple. The
panel sentenced him to life in prison on one count and death on the
other.
According to records, Wickline had been using cocaine in his
home with the couple when he stabbed and decapitated Christopher
Lerch and strangled Petty Lerch during an argument over $6,000 in
drug money. He cut up their bodies and placed them in trash bins in
Columbus, according to investigators.
Wickline, 51, was indicted in Wood County in
April 1985 for the November 1979 decapitation of Charles Morgan
Marsh at a Dry Run Road residence.
Charleston attorney Harry G.
Deitzler had just been appointed Wood County prosecutor at the time
of the death, and he went to the Dry Run Road home that was the
crime scene. "I received a call that there was a murder and that a
victim's head had been severed. It was, for me as a young prosecutor,
in part a learning experience and also an initiation into a major
murder crime scene investigation," Deitzler said.
At the beginning,
there was suspicion it was a burglary committed upon a known drug
dealer by his present or former associates. By the way the house was
ransacked and appeared to have been searched, most of the
investigators agreed whoever was there was looking for money,
Deitzler said.
The body was lying on a bed, the head was on a nearby
night stand. About $30,000 in cash was found under the mattress,
Deitzler said. The sheriff's office did the initial investigation,
later state police became involved. Then-Trooper William Rectenwald
was involved in the investigation and through statements of
witnesses, officers discovered other matters and evidence that led
to Wickline, Deitzler said.
The prosecutor presented the case to a 1985 grand
jury and an indictment was returned. After Wickline was convicted in
the 1982 murder in Ohio and sentenced to death, Deitzler said his
concern was making sure if that conviction or sentence was
overturned, Wood County would get Wickline back here to be tried,
and that Wickline not be released back into society. "The only way I
could provide that insurance for the community was to pursue the
indictment and if necessary, trial. We got the indictment and asked
the judge for a capias for his arrest and extradition so we could
try him on the charges here.
If we just let him sit in Ohio then his speedy
trial rights would prevent his trial at a later date," Deitzler
said. Wickline's attorney objected to extradition, and contacted
Deitzler. "We worked out an agreement whereby we would let him stay
in Ohio and not try him, if he would waive his right to speedy
trial. The agreement was executed, and that's why we were able to
leave him a burden to Ohio taxpayers instead of spending West
Virginia dollars on the case," Deitzler said.
For each arraignment
day for the past 18 years, the case has been called and the
prosecutor's office has asked the warrant be kept active. "We will
probably not dismiss the indictment until we have been notified that
he has been executed," Prosecutor Ginny Conley said. Conley recalled
hearing about the decapitation murder while still a teen. "Learning
someone had actually been beheaded was horrifying," she said.
UPDATE:
In Columbus, the Ohio Parole Board on
Tuesday unanimously recommended denying clemency for a death row
inmate convicted of killing a Columbus couple whose dismembered
remains were discarded in trash bins.
The 9-member board delivered
its report to Gov. Bob Taft, who will decide whether to commute
William D. Wickline's sentence to life in prison without parole. "Mr.
Wickline has failed to accept the responsibility for the crimes he
committed and has expressed no remorse," the board said in its 10-page
decision. The bodies of Christopher and Peggy Lerch were never found
after their August 1982 disappearance.
Wickline, 51, was convicted chiefly based on the
testimony of his former girlfriend, Teresa Kemp, who said Wickline
slit Christopher Lerch's throat over a $6,000 drug debt, then
strangled the unconscious Mrs. Lerch with a rope.
The death sentence
was for Mrs. Lerch's death because the three-judge panel that tried
the case ruled she was killed to avoid detection in another crime.
Wickline is to be executed by injection March 30 at the Southern
Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville.
His attorney, David
Stebbins, has said Wickline maintains he does not know what happened
to the Lerches. Stebbins argued before the board last month that
there was too little physical evidence to justify the death sentence
and asked the board to consider Wickline's exemplary behavior while
on death row at Mansfield Correctional Institution.
"Kemp's testimony was at times unclear, with
sequences of events and blocks of time merged and confused," the
board wrote. "However, her testimony was consistent with an earlier
statement and was corroborated by other evidence." Taft said Tuesday
that his legal staff would review the case and report to him in a
few days. He gave no timeline for when he would decide. A telephone
message was left with Stebbins' office.
Wickline was denied clemency
in 1996 and scheduled to die, but a federal judge granted a stay,
allowing an appeal to proceed. State and federal courts have since
rejected Wickline's claims that he had ineffective trial attorneys.
Associated Press - Lucasville - The U.S. Supreme
Court on Monday refused to halt the scheduled execution of a man
convicted of murdering and dismembering a Columbus couple in 1982.
William Wickline, 52, had no other pending
appeals before his scheduled execution by injection today at the
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville. Wickline's
attorneys had argued that his trial lawyers did not try to seek
information that could persuade judges to impose life imprisonment
instead of death.
The appeal was based on a Supreme Court decision
last year saying defense attorneys don't need their client's
cooperation to conduct such investigations. The court turned down
Wickline's appeal without comment.
A three-judge panel in 1985 convicted Wickline of
killing Christopher and Peggy Lerch in his Columbus apartment. The
Franklin County Common Pleas judges sentenced him to life in prison
for Christopher Lerch's murder and to death for the slaying of Peggy
Lerch because she was killed to cover up another crime. The couple
from Blendon Township north of the city were last seen in August
1982. Their bodies were never found.
Wickline has denied killing the couple,
portraying the primary witness against him as a jealous, spurned
lover who invented a tale to keep custody of her then- infant son
after admitting drug use to authorities. Wickline would become the
11th inmate to be executed since Ohio resumed carrying out the death
penalty in 1999. Gov. Bob Taft last week refused to commute
Wickline's sentence.
TheDeathHouse.com
Wickline is scheduled for execution March 30 for
the drug-related murders of a couple in the Columbus area in 1982.
After killing the husband and wife, Wickline dismembered the bodies
and scattered the remains throughout the area, according to the
testimony of Wickline's then-girlfriend. The remains have never been
found. Wickline was also charged with a murder in West Virginia, in
which the victim was beheaded.
The murders in Ohio occurred August 14, 1982. The
victims were Christopher and Peggy Lerch. Wickline was sentenced to
death for the murder of Peggy Lerch. The key evidence against
Wickline came from his then-girlfriend, Theresa Kemp, who claims she
helped Wickline dispose of the bodies. Wickline killed the couple
during an argument over drug money, Kemp testified.
Court documents stated that Christopher and Peggy
Lerch, Kemp and Wickline had been using cocaine and drinking at
Wickline's apartment when the murders occurred. Wickline claimed
that Christopher Lerch owed him $6,000.
While counting the money to
give to Wickline, Christopher Lerch may have reached for a gun.
Wickline grabbed the gun and hit Christopher Lerch on the head and
then handcuffed him to the table. Kemp also claimed in her testimony
that Wickline had struck Christopher Lerch in the head several
times. Lerch had previously taunted Wickline, claiming he had had a
sexual relationship with Kemp.
Wickline cut Christopher Lerch's
throat. Wickline later told his girlfriend that they had to "take
care of Peggy." While she was passed out, Wickline strangled her
with a rope, Kemp claimed in her testimony Kemp held the victim's
legs while Wickline strangled Peggy Lerch, court documents stated.
After taking both bodies upstairs, Wickline
started dismembering the corpses by cutting off Christopher's head,
court documented said.
In 1984, while Wickline was serving a jail
sentence unrelated to the murders, Kemp took handcuffs, jewelry and
other items belonging to Christopher and Peggy Lerch and hid them in
a safety deposit box. The items were later recovered by the police.
The dead couple was last heard from August 12, 1982. A missing
persons report on them was filed in late August of that year.
Wickline was also indicted for the 1979 murder of
a man in West Virginia. The victim, Charles Morgan Marsh, was also
decapitated. His body was found on a bed and his head on a nearby
nightstand, prosecutors stated.
Court documents stated that police
were first tipped-off that Wickline may have been involved in the
murders of Christopher and Peggy Lerch by an informant. They then
questioned Kemp, who told investigators what had happened.
National Coalition to Abolish
the Death Penalty
William Wickline, Ohio - March 30, 10 AM EST
The state of Ohio is scheduled to execute William
Wickline, a white man, March 30 for the 1982 murders of Peggy and
Christopher Lerch, both white, in Columbus. Mr. and Mrs. Lerch were
killed because they allegedly owed Mr. Wickline $6,000 for drugs
they had purchased.
The murders occurred after the Lerches, Mr.
Wickline, and Teresa Kemp spent the night drinking heavily and
taking cocaine. That morning, after the four had resumed drinking
and taking drugs, an argument began between Mr. Lerch and Mr.
Wickline over the $6,000 owed to Mr. Wickline.
According to Ms. Kemp,
Mr. Wickline went upstairs and called for Mr. Lerch to help him.
After a few minutes Mr. Wickline came downstairs, and Ms. Kemp went
to check on Mr. Lerch, finding him dead in the bathtub with his
throat slit. She came downstairs and was ordered by Mr. Wickline to
hold the legs of the sleeping Peggy Lerch while he strangled her. Mr.
Wickline is thought to have cut up the bodies and disposed of them
in dumpsters throughout the city.
Because no bodies were found, and there was very
little physical evidence, the prosecution’s case rested heavily on
the uncorroborated testimony of Teresa Kemp. The defense argues that
Ms. Kemp incriminated Mr. Wickline because the police threatened her
with the death penalty for her involvement in the murders.
The
police found Mr. Wickline to be in possession of jewelry belonging
to the Lerches, which he claims to have held for collateral against
the money he was owed.
The defense did not obtain a blood expert, nor
were they allowed by Mr. Wickline to investigate or present
mental-health evidence, family-member testimony, or evidence of a
troubled family background. On appeal, the defense argued that
prosecutor’s statements comparing the crime to the burning of Jewish
bodies in Nazi concentration camps were prejudicial, but their claim
was rejected.
The state of Ohio has executed two men in 2004,
despite strong evidence that their legal system is not providing
those accused of capital murder with an adequate defense.
A study done through Columbia University found
that nationally two-thirds of all capital cases were overturned due
to constitutional errors. Ohio courts have only an eight percent
reversal rate, and a report by the Ohio Public Defender service
shows that the Ohio Supreme Court “basically rubber-stamps” lower
court decisions in capital cases. “I can only believe it’s a sign of
failure,” commented Ohio Public Defender David Bodiker on the Ohio
Supreme Court’s rate of reversal, “no matter what the case, what the
circumstance, we believe they’ll find a way to affirm it.”
Essentially this means that cases involving
constitutional errors, police and prosecutorial misconduct, and
actual innocence are pushed blindly through the system. In Mr.
Wickline’s case, involving his life or his death, this negligence
borders on criminal. There is no evidence that conclusively proves
his guilt; thus he should not be executed.
Please contact Gov. Taft and urge him to commute
the death sentence of Mr. Wickline to life in prison without parole.
Please further urge him to support legislation calling for a
moratorium on Ohio executions.
Man to be put to death for murdering couple
His
girlfriend testified they were killed over $6,000 drug debt, bodies
were butchered, stuffed in trash
By Carrie Spencer - Akron Beacon Journal
AP - March 29, 2004
COLUMBUS - Teresa Kemp says she's been unable to
sleep soundly for 22 years, still haunted by the image of her lover
holding a man's severed head in his hand. "Do you know I still walk
into a bathroom sometimes and smell blood?'' Kemp wrote last month
to the Ohio Parole Board.
Trembling on the witness stand, Kemp
provided the chief evidence that sent William D. Wickline to death
row. She testified that he killed a Columbus couple over a $6,000
drug debt, butchered their bodies and recruited a friend to help
throw the remains in trash bins.
Barring court intervention, Wickline, 52, is to
die by lethal injection Tuesday at the Southern Ohio Correctional
Facility in Lucasville.
A three-judge panel in 1985 convicted the former
Columbus man of killing Christopher and Peggy Lerch. The Franklin
County common pleas judges sentenced him to life in prison for
Christopher Lerch's murder and to death for the slaying of Peggy
Lerch because she was killed to cover up another crime.
The couple
from Blendon Township north of the city were last seen in August
1982. Their bodies were never found. "They got themselves in the
wrong place at the wrong time,'' said Patricia Keaton, Peggy Lerch's
mother, before her husband took the phone and declined an interview
request. Peggy Lerch's son from a previous marriage was 4 when she
was killed and knows her only from pictures, her family told the
parole board.
Wickline has denied killing the couple,
portraying Kemp as a jealous spurned lover who invented a tale to
keep custody of her then-infant son after admitting drug use to
authorities. "That's the one comfort that I have,'' he said before
his sentencing, 2is the hope and the belief that they will be
found, and I hope that they are found alive, but even if they are
found dead, and in one piece, then will she be made to pay back what
she has done to me?'' The judges, and appellate courts since then,
rejected the argument. Kemp has said she doesn't want to comment
before the execution.
Appeal won't be reheard
Wickline, who declined interview requests through
prison officials and his attorney, continued arguing his innocence
in various appeals and two failed requests for clemency. His last
legal stand rests on a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year saying
defense attorneys in death penalty cases don't need their client's
cooperation to seek information that could persuade judges to impose
life imprisonment instead of death. ``His counsel did no
investigation for the penalty phase of the case, zero,'' Wickline's
attorney David Stebbins said.
Appellate courts have said such an investigation
wouldn't have mattered, because backgrounds including child abuse
and being forced into crime by parents haven't dissuaded judges from
imposing the death penalty. A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Wickline's request for a stay last
week, saying it was an old argument. The full court declined to
rehear the appeal on Friday.
A psychological evaluation from 1974, when
Wickline was imprisoned for the second of a series of burglary
convictions, said he got along "fairly well'' with his parents and
two younger brothers but started using drugs at age 16. In 1978, his
supervisor at a prison slaughterhouse praised Wickline's butchering
work as exceptional.
'Just a scary guy'
Wickline was imprisoned on another burglary
conviction when police were tracking down tips that their 2-year-old
missing- persons case might be a homicide. Others led them to Kemp,
who had married another man a month after the couple disappeared. A
friend and Wickline's former common-law wife had told police
Wickline told them how he killed the Lerches. Their stories in
police reports matched Kemp's. The wife was barred from testifying
and the friend told prosecutors he was afraid Wickline would kill
him. He was charged with contempt when he refused to testify.
"Wickline was just a scary guy,'' said retired
Columbus detective Rick Sheasby, who interviewed the inmate briefly
before he was charged. ``He's got those eyes that you can just tell.''
The man who informants and Kemp said helped Wickline dispose of the
Lerches fled the state as soon as police started investigating
Wickline, Sheasby said.
That left only Kemp on the stand. She described
their relationship and the weekend of drug use, drinking and
fighting that ended with the murders.
Kemp said Wickline slit Chris
Lerch's throat in an upstairs bathroom while Peggy Lerch was asleep,
then came downstairs and forced Kemp to lie across the woman's legs
while he strangled her.
Kemp was never charged because she didn't do
much to help kill Peggy Lerch and prosecutors couldn't find evidence
of intent to kill, said Pat Sheeran, an assistant county prosecutor
who helped try the case. With no bodies, the physical evidence was
scant but matched her story: bloody handcuffs, human blood in caulk
from the tub and dried human tissue and blood on a folding saw.
Kemp's candor and demeanor on the stand convinced courts of her
credibility, Sheeran said.
Sheeran plans to watch the execution along with a
Blendon Township detective and Peggy Lerch's sister. Wickline's two
younger brothers also told the state they would be witnesses.
Former
county Prosecutor Mike Miller said that after the trial, two
experienced Columbus homicide detectives independently came to his
office, closed the door and asked him to ensure that they and their
families would be notified if Wickline ever left prison. ``These
were not people who did things like this,'' he said. ``There was
true fear. I'd never seen it before and I've never seen it since.''
Ohio Executes Man for Killing Couple
By Carrie
Spencer - Chillicothe Gazette
AP - Mar 30, 2004
LUCASVILLE, Ohio (AP) -- A man who worked in a
prison slaughterhouse was executed Tuesday for strangling a woman
after slitting her husband's throat and then dismembering the bodies.
William D. Wickline, 52, was the 11th inmate to die by injection
since Ohio resumed executions in 1999. He was pronounced dead at
10:11 a.m. at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. On Monday,
the U.S. Supreme Court had refused to block Wickline's execution.
Wickline was convicted in 1985 of killing
Christopher and Peggy Lerch in his Columbus apartment over a $6,000
drug debt. He was sentenced to life in prison for Christopher
Lerch's murder and to death for the slaying of Peggy Lerch because
she was killed to cover up another crime.
The victims were never
found, but Wickline's former girlfriend testified he used a saw to
butcher the bodies and had a friend help him discard the bagged
parts in trash bins around Columbus. The testimony by Teresa Kemp
matched the account of police informants who didn't testify.
Wickline, who previously worked in a prison
slaughterhouse while serving time for burglary in the 1970s, denied
killing the couple. He portrayed Kemp as a jealous, spurned lover
who invented a tale to keep custody of her then-infant son after
admitting she used drugs.
In a Supreme Court appeal, attorney David
Stebbins argued that Wickline's trial lawyers did not investigate
his past during the penalty phase of his trial in an effort to avoid
a death sentence. However, the state argued that Wickline was deeply
involved in his case and directed his defense every step of the way.
"He clearly was directing and in control of his defense," said Kim
Norris, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Jim Petro.
As Wickline walked into the death chamber, Peggy
Lerch's sister silently raised a framed photo of her, and held it
toward the window from the witness room until a guard closed the
curtain after Wickline stopped breathing. Nancy Fowler then embraced
the picture. Wickline never looked in her direction, instead smiling
and giving a thumbs up to his two younger brothers, Robert and
David. "May tomorrow see the courts shaped by more wisdom and less
politics," he said in a final statement.
State executes man convicted in dismemberment
slayings
Mansfield News-Journal
March 30, 2004
LUCASVILLE, Ohio (AP) - A man was executed today
for strangling an unconscious woman with a rope after slitting her
husband's throat over a $6,000 drug debt. The only witness said the
former prison slaughterhouse worker cut up the bodies, which were
never found.
William D. Wickline, 52, was the 11th inmate to
die by injection since Ohio resumed executions in 1999. He was
pronounced dead at 10:11 a.m. at the Southern Ohio Correctional
Facility. Wickline's final statement was, "May tomorrow see the
courts shaped by more wisdom and less politics."
Wickline was moved from the Mansfield
Correctional Institution to Lucasville on Monday in preparation for
today's execution. Wickline was convicted of murdering and
dismembering a Columbus couple in 1982.
Wickline's lawyer argued Monday that trial
lawyers did not do a thorough job of defending him. But the attorney
general's office says Wickline directed his defense every step of
the way. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block
Wickline's execution. His attorneys argued that his trial lawyers
did not try to seek information that could persuade judges to impose
life imprisonment instead of death.
The appeal was based on a
Supreme Court decision last year saying defense attorneys don't need
their client's cooperation to conduct such investigations. The court
turned down Wickline's appeal without comment.
A three-judge panel in 1985 convicted Wickline of
killing Christopher and Peggy Lerch in his Columbus apartment. The
Franklin County Common Pleas judges sentenced him to life in prison
for Christopher Lerch's murder and to death for the slaying of Mrs.
Lerch because she was killed to cover up another crime. The couple
from Blendon Township north of Columbus were last seen in August
1982. Their bodies were never found.
Wickline denied killing the couple, portraying
the primary witness against him as a jealous, spurned lover who
invented a tale to keep custody of her then-infant son after
admitting drug use to authorities. In Wickline's motion to stop the
execution, lawyer David Stebbins argued that Wickline's lawyers did
not present evidence of Wickline's history during the penalty phase
of his trial in an attempt to avoid a death sentence.
However, the
state argued that Wickline was deeply involved in his case, said Kim
Norris, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Jim Petro. "He clearly
was directing and in control of his defense," she said. A message
seeking comment was left for Stebbins.
After being moved on Monday, Wickline spent most
of the day talking on the phone to his brother, David Wickline of
Columbus, or chatting with members of the execution team, prisons
spokeswoman Andrea Dean said.
Dean said that about 4 p.m., Wickline
was served his "special meal" of an eight-ounce filet mignon, medium
rare; potato salad; six rolls with butter; fresh strawberries with
shortcake; and butter pecan ice cream. The steak came from the
prison kitchen. The other ingredients were bought at a local store
for $11.66. He also received four packs of Pall Mall cigarettes and
six cans of pop, including three of Mountain Dew.
Wickline met with a spiritual adviser, Rev. Gary
Sims, a Baptist minister who is the prisons department's religious
services administrator. Wickline's brothers, David and Robert,
planned to witness the execution, Dean said.
Pat Sheeran, an assistant Franklin County
prosecutor who helped try the case, a Blendon Township detective and
Mrs. Lerch's sister, planned to watch the execution as victims'
witnesses.
State v. Wickline,
Not Reported in N.E.2d (Ohio App. 1988) (Direct Appeal).
BOWMAN, Judge.
On August 25, 1982, a missing persons report was filed concerning
Chris and Peggy Lerch. The Lerches were last heard from around
August 12, 1982. Approximately two years later, the police, acting
on information received from informants, contacted Teresa Kemp. Kemp
first denied having knowledge of any killings committed by appellant,
William D. Wickline, but later told police that the Lerches were
murdered on August 14, 1982 by appellant, at his apartment.
The most compelling evidence presented at trial
by the state was the testimony of Kemp. Kemp's testimony was at
times unclear, with sequences of events and blocks of time merged
and confused.
However, her testimony was consistent with an earlier
statement and was corroborated by other evidence. It revealed that
the deaths were the result of a dispute over drug money. Appellant's
motive for killing the Lerches was $6,000 that he claimed was owed
for cocaine.
In her testimony, Kemp revealed that the murders
took place after she, Wickline and the Lerches had spent hours
taking drugs and drinking heavily. The argument over money did not
begin until after the four of them had partied together all night at
the Lerches' residence, stopped, and then resumed partying the next
morning at appellant's apartment.
At one time during the argument,
Chris Lerch was handcuffed to the kitchen table and was beaten on
the head several times by appellant. Shortly before the murders,
Lerch taunted appellant by saying that he had had a physical
relationship with Kemp.
The argument seemed to end as suddenly as it
began. Appellant went upstairs and shortly thereafter called for
Chris Lerch to come and help him. Kemp and Peggy Lerch stayed
downstairs. When appellant came back downstairs alone, Kemp went
upstairs to check on Chris Lerch. She found him dead in the bathtub
with his throat slit.
She went downstairs and at the order of
appellant held the legs of a sleeping Peggy Lerch while appellant
strangled her. Appellant then cut up the bodies in the bathtub,
placed the parts in trash bags and disposed of them in various
dumpsters around the city while Kemp, at the direction of appellant,
cleaned the blood from the bathroom.
Between the time the Lerches disappeared and the
time the police began their investigation, appellant was
incarcerated on an unrelated offense. Kemp married another man but
continued to visit appellant at prison. At the direction of
appellant, Kemp took care of appellant's personal belongings. She
placed some items in storage and placed jewelry in a safety deposit
box. Eventually, she led the police to these belongings, which later
served as corroborating evidence at appellant's trial.
Appellant gave an unsworn statement at the
mitigation phase of trial. He described his relationship with Kemp
as one that had gone sour. While appellant was in prison Kemp often
came to visit, even though she was married and had a child.
Eventually, appellant told Kemp that their relationship was over and
that when he got out of prison he would be trying to make it on his
own.
Appellant contends that his arrest was the result
of a jilted woman spreading rumors to a few friends, one of whom was
the wife of the jail inmate who gave police the tip which led to
appellant's arrest. Appellant believes that the police intimidated
Kemp into describing the murders by threatening her with the death
penalty for her involvement.
He described Kemp as one who would have
no problem lying to the police and even as one who stood to profit
financially from the story she told. Appellant claims Kemp now has
$10,000 worth of possessions which she took from his apartment after
his arrest.
In his statement, appellant attempted to
discredit Kemp's testimony by pointing out its weakest points. He
contends that he had the Lerches' jewelry as collateral for the
$6,000 Chris Lerch owed him for cocaine. Further, he insists that it
was the Lerches who were fighting and not himself and Chris Lerch.
The argument involved Chris Lerch's infidelity and in that context,
Chris made the snide remark about being with Kemp at a motel. It was
not, as Kemp related, a comment directed at appellant. Appellant
denied that he and Chris Lerch even argued that morning. He claimed
to have had no involvement in the Lerches' death.
Appellant waived his right to a trial by jury and
was tried by a panel of three judges who found William D. Wickline
guilty of two counts of aggravated murder, with one count carrying a
death specification. Appellant was sentenced to twenty years to life
on the first count, the murder of Chris Lerch, and death on the
second count, the murder of Peggy Lerch. Appellant has appealed,
raising twenty-one assignments of error:
* * *
For all of the foregoing reasons, appellant's
Assignments of Error No. I through XXI are overruled, and the
judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.
319 F.3d 813
William D. WICKLINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v.
Betty MITCHELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 98-4280.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued: September 18, 2002.
Decided and Filed: January 30, 2003.
Before: MARTIN, Chief Circuit
Judge; SILER and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
SILER, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner William D. Wickline,
an Ohio death row inmate, appeals the denial of his Rule 59(e)
motion to alter or amend the district court's judgment
dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the
following reasons, we AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
Wickline was convicted by a
three-judge court of two counts of aggravated murder, for the
deaths of Christopher and Peggy Lerch. The panel sentenced
Wickline to life imprisonment on one count and to death on the
other. After unsuccessful direct appeals and state post-conviction
proceedings, Wickline filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Finding that Wickline's
forty-two claims were either procedurally defaulted or lacked
sufficient merit to warrant granting the writ, the district
court dismissed his petition. Both Wickline and respondent (the
"State") filed motions to alter or amend the judgment pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
The district court granted the
State's motion and amended the judgment to hold that the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L.
No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) ("AEDPA"), is applicable to
Wickline's petition. Wickline's Rule 59(e) motion was denied.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A. AEDPA
In a habeas proceeding, this
court reviews a district court's legal conclusions de novo
and its factual findings for clear error. Lucas v. O'Dea,
179 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir.1999). Because Wickline filed his
habeas petition on May 31, 1996, after the effective date of
AEDPA, this court reviews the petition under the standards set
forth in AEDPA. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336,
117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997); Williams v. Coyle,
167 F.3d 1036, 1040 (6th Cir.1999) ("[A] federal habeas corpus
case is filed or pending for the purposes of Lindh and
the AEDPA only when the petition for the writ is filed.").1
As amended, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) provides as follows:
An application for a writ of
habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to
any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court
proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim —
(1) resulted in a decision
that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,
clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision
that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in
light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). "The
threshold question under AEDPA is whether [the petitioner] seeks
to apply a rule of law that was clearly established at the time
his state-court conviction became final." Williams v. Taylor,
529 U.S. 362, 390, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). The
phrase "clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States" refers to "the holdings, as
opposed to the dicta," of the Supreme Court. Id. at 412,
120 S.Ct. 1495.
B. Procedural Default
The district court concluded
that many of Wickline's claims are procedurally defaulted for
failure to raise them at the earliest opportunity. When a
petitioner defaults on his "federal claims in state court
pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule,
federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the
prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual
prejudice ... or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims
will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice." Coleman
v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d
640 (1991).
In Maupin v. Smith, 785
F.2d 135 (6th Cir.1986), this court set forth a four-step
analysis for determining whether a petitioner's federal
constitutional claims are barred by the petitioner's failure to
follow a state procedural rule.2
"Whether a state court rested its holding on procedural default
so as to bar federal habeas review is a question of law,"
reviewed de novo. Combs v. Coyle, 205 F.3d 269, 275 (6th
Cir.2000). This court looks to the last explained state-court
judgment when answering that question. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Ineffective Assistance of
Counsel
While Wickline asserts a
number of grounds for relief in his petition, the parties
focused primarily on one issue at oral argument — alleged
ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We will therefore
address that issue first. Wickline claims that his trial counsel
was ineffective in several areas, most notably in the alleged
failure to investigate or present mitigating evidence. Under
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80
L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), a violation of the right to effective
assistance of counsel has two components:
First, the defendant must show
that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing
that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not
functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed the defendant by the
Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the
deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires
showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the
defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.
Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct.
2052. Review of counsel's performance is highly deferential and
requires that courts "indulge a strong presumption that
counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable
professional assistance." Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To
demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient, a "defendant
must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness." Id. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
To establish prejudice, he "must
show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different. A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome."
Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. There is no question that
Strickland qualifies as clearly established federal law
under AEDPA. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 391, 120
S.Ct. 1495.
Wickline argues that his trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present
mitigating evidence at the penalty phase. According to Wickline,
his counsel should have investigated his mental health history
and presented expert testimony on his psychological condition.
Wickline also asserts that counsel should have investigated and
presented evidence of his history, character, and background as
mitigating evidence.
The Ohio Supreme Court
rejected Wickline's argument, noting that, unlike most cases,
the record contained a statement of counsel's strategy, which
led the court to conclude that "the manner in which appellant
was represented at the mitigation phase was the result of an
informed and tactical strategy." State v. Wickline, 552
N.E.2d 913, 925 (Ohio 1990). St.3d 114, 552 N.E.2d 913, 925
(1990). The court did not find that the sentencing decision
would have differed, even assuming counsel's performance was
deficient.
Under the Ohio death penalty
scheme,
a capital defendant found
guilty of a death specification has to present some
mitigating evidence in order to avoid the death penalty. If a
jury has nothing to weigh against the aggravating circumstance,
it almost certainly must find that the aggravating circumstance
outweighs the (nonexistent) mitigating circumstances, and
recommend death.
Mapes v. Coyle, 171
F.3d 408, 426 (6th Cir.1999) (emphasis in original). "[W]hen a
client faces the prospect of being put to death unless counsel
obtains and presents something in mitigation, minimal
standards require some investigation." Id. (emphasis in
original). Consequently, this court has held that failure to
investigate possible mitigating factors and failure to present
mitigating evidence at sentencing can constitute ineffective
assistance of counsel. See Coleman v. Mitchell (Coleman
II), 268 F.3d 417, 445-53 (6th Cir. 2001), cert. denied,
535 U.S. 1031, 122 S.Ct. 1639, 152 L.Ed.2d 647 (2002); Skaggs
v. Parker, 235 F.3d 261, 269, 271 (6th Cir. 2000), cert.
denied, 534 U.S. 943, 122 S.Ct. 322, 151 L.Ed.2d 241 (2001);
Carter v. Bell, 218 F.3d 581, 600 (6th Cir.2000).
After being convicted and
sentenced to death, Wickline moved for a new trial based in part
on his counsel's failure to investigate mental health evidence.
At a hearing before the original three-judge panel, Dan Hunt,
one of Wickline's trial attorneys, testified regarding his
strategy at the penalty phase. Before trial, counsel hired a
private investigator who had been a homicide detective with the
Columbus Police Department for twenty years.
According to Hunt, this
investigator interviewed "just about everybody." Wickline's
trial counsel personally interviewed key witnesses, including
Wickline's brother and his common law wife. Hunt's co-counsel,
John Wolery, who had represented Wickline for many years, knew
Wickline's friends and talked with his father. Although counsel
did not perform a separate mitigation investigation, counsel
testified that their pretrial investigation was conducted for
both guilt phase and mitigation phase purposes, and that he
could not separate the two.
After the three-judge panel
returned a guilty verdict, Wickline's counsel turned to the
mitigation statute and the section of the Ohio Public Defender's
manual dealing with the mitigation hearing. Counsel went through
each mitigating factor with Wickline. Counsel advised Wickline
that he could have a psychiatric report, but counsel chose not
to have one for two reasons. First, Wickline "wanted nothing to
do with psychiatrists or psychologists." Second, counsel felt
that a psychiatric report would reflect negatively on Wickline.
Counsel also advised Wickline that a presentence report delving
into his background could be prepared. Again, Wickline "wanted
nothing to do with the probation officer." Counsel requested to
speak with Wickline's family.
According to Hunt, Wickline "was
very strong on this, he did not want to drag his family into
this thing, and basically told us no as far as his family was
involved." Counsel was also concerned that if they put witnesses
on the stand testifying to Wickline's good character, it would
open the door for the prosecution to bring in evidence of bad
acts committed by him and that such evidence would greatly
damage any mitigating factors they presented. Counsel reviewed
Wickline's prison files but chose not to present them to avoid
highlighting his numerous incarcerations.
After two or three meetings to
discuss their strategy, Wickline and his counsel decided to
argue that Christopher and Peggy Lerch facilitated the murders
by attempting a drug rip-off. The three-judge panel had already
rejected Wickline's primary defense — that no murders had taken
place. Counsel felt that it would be best to focus on their
strongest mitigating factor, avoid the danger of opening the
door to harmful information, and not "cloud it up with stuff we
couldn't prove." Hunt testified that Wickline made the final
decision to proceed as they did.
In Strickland, the
Supreme Court noted that "[t]he reasonableness of counsel's
actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the
defendant's own statements or actions. Counsel's actions are
usually based, quite properly, on informed strategic choices
made by the defendant and on information supplied by the
defendant." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
Furthermore, "[a]n attorney's conduct is not deficient simply
for following his client's instructions." Coleman v. Mitchell
(Coleman I), 244 F.3d 533, 545 (6th Cir.), cert.
denied, 534 U.S. 977, 122 S.Ct. 405, 151 L.Ed.2d 307 (2001),
and cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1012, 122 S.Ct. 1595, 152 L.Ed.2d
510 (2002).
Here, Wickline's counsel
investigated prior to trial, hiring a private investigator to
interview persons with knowledge about the case and personally
interviewing key witnesses. This investigation was performed for
the purposes of both the guilt phase and the penalty phase.
After the panel returned a guilty verdict, counsel discussed
mitigation strategy with Wickline two or three times.
Wickline did not want to speak
with a psychiatrist or a probation officer or involve his family.
Consequently, Wickline and his counsel reached the decision to
focus on their strongest mitigating factor — that the Lerches
facilitated the murders by participating in drug dealing and
attempting a drug rip-off. Wickline made the final decision to
proceed with this strategy.
Based on the record evidence
of Wickline's strategic choices, counsel's investigation and
presentation of mitigating evidence did not fall below an
objective standard of reasonableness. See Coleman I, 244
F.3d at 545-46 (holding that petitioner was not deprived of the
right to effective assistance of counsel at sentencing where
petitioner did not cooperate with counsel regarding the
investigation and identification of mitigating evidence, imposed
restrictions upon counsel, and refused to submit to further
psychological or psychiatric testing). But see Coleman II,
268 F.3d at 452 (finding that "counsel's performance, given the
combination of Petitioner's uninvestigated personal history and
the consequently deficient penalty phase closing argument, to be
objectively unreasonable").
Even if counsel were deficient
in investigating and presenting mitigating evidence, Wickline
fails to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland.
Wickline argues that his trial counsel could have presented
mental health evidence. The mental health evidence submitted
with his petition for post-conviction relief indicates that
Wickline did not suffer from any mental condition relevant to
the murders of the Lerches. The records state that "[t]here is
no evidence of a thought disorder or psychotic reaction," that
"[p]sychological testing reveals that he is functioning in the
superior range of general intelligence," and that he has an IQ
of 124.
The mental health evidence
indicates that Wickline suffered from depression; however, there
is no evidence that his depression affected his conduct here.
See State v. White, 85 Ohio St.3d 433, 709 N.E.2d 140, 161
(1999) ("In contrast, defendant's mild depression was undisputed,
but it is unclear what role (if any) it played in these crimes.
This is, at best, a weak mitigating factor."). Wickline also
argues that his trial counsel should have introduced evidence of
his good behavior during prior incarcerations. Counsel reviewed
Wickline's prison records and decided not to present them
because they would highlight Wickline's extensive criminal
history.
Finally, Wickline claims that
his trial counsel erred in not presenting any evidence regarding
his allegedly troubled upbringing. He vaguely states that his
relationship with his father "was crucial to his development and
the way he handled frustration and rage." Wickline also asserts
that the death of his mother "devastated him."
The State contends that
Wickline's family experiences do not provide a justification or
explanation for this crime. See State v. Dickerson, 45
Ohio St.3d 206, 543 N.E.2d 1250, 1261 (1989) ("While these
experiences are unfortunate, they are not uncommon. It takes no
citation of authority to state that many other people have
endured similar experiences without resort to lawlessness.").
Wickline has failed to
demonstrate that there is a "reasonable probability" that, but
for his trial counsel's failure to present this evidence, the
result of the penalty phase would have been different. Therefore
his claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to
investigate and present mitigating evidence fails
Strickland's prejudice prong.
The Ohio Supreme Court's
determination that Wickline's counsel was not deficient at the
penalty phase and that even if it were, the sentencing decision
would not have been different is not contrary to or an
unreasonable application of Strickland. Accordingly,
Wickline is not entitled to any relief on this ground.3
B. Other Arguments
Wickline's allegations that
his trial counsel was ineffective in other areas are likewise
without merit. He contends that his counsel was unable to
prepare for trial or to properly advise him on the issue of jury
waiver due to the state's discovery violations. The Ohio Supreme
Court rejected this argument, finding that Wickline was not
prejudiced by the alleged discovery violations, and, therefore,
he was not prejudiced by any ineffectiveness of counsel
resulting from those alleged discovery violations. This implied
conclusion was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of
Strickland.4
Wickline also asserts that
there were many deficiencies in the trial phase caused by his
counsel's allegedly substandard performance. This assertion is
without merit, in that (1) the record demonstrates that trial
counsel did not concede the element of prior calculation and
design; (2) Wickline has failed to present any evidence to
overcome the presumption that the three-judge panel ignored any
improper evidence counsel failed to redact from his Brady
motion; and (3) Wickline has not shown that his counsel's
conduct fell below a standard of objective reasonableness
regarding his decision to call Jay McCarty as a witness.
Wickline's argument that his
trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request a change of
venue is procedurally defaulted; even if it were not, however,
this claim fails because Wickline was tried by a three-judge
panel, rather than a jury, and he has failed to present any
evidence that the panel was prejudiced by pretrial publicity.
Likewise, the argument that
Wickline was denied effective assistance of counsel in the
failure to obtain expert and investigative assistance for the
trial phase is also procedurally defaulted, because he never
presented the claim on direct appeal, raising it for the first
time in his state post-conviction proceedings. Even if this
claim was not procedurally defaulted, the Ohio Court of Appeals'
alternative ruling, that the claim fails on the merits, is not
contrary to or an unreasonable application of the prejudice
prong of Strickland.
Wickline further asserts that
he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel ("IAAC").
His claims in this regard are procedurally defaulted due to his
failure to comply with the rule set forth in State v.
Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992), and
codified in Ohio R.App. P. 26(B). In Murnahan, the Ohio
Supreme Court held that IAAC claims are not cognizable in post-conviction
proceedings pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code § 2953.21 but must be
raised in a motion for reopening before the court of appeals,
within ninety days from journalization of the appellate judgment,
pursuant to Ohio R.App.P. 26(B).
Wickline failed to comply with
Rule 26(B) since he filed his motion to reopen on November 14,
1994 — six years after his appellate judgment was journalized,
two years after Murnahan was decided, and sixteen months
after Rule 26(B) became effective — and failed to demonstrate
good cause for that delay.
Even if Wickline's IAAC claims
were not procedurally defaulted, his claims fail on the merits.
Wickline contends that his appellate counsel was
constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise the following
issues on direct appeal: (1) the three-judge panel's knowledge
of inadmissible, prejudicial information; (2) extensive
prejudicial media coverage and the failure to request a change
of venue; (3) arbitrary and capricious application of the death
penalty; (4) failure to request defense experts; (5) Ohio
Supreme Court's application of a lesser standard of proof for
harmless error; and (6) failure to present mitigating evidence.
Each of the six allegedly omitted issues either lacks merit or
was raised by appellate counsel on direct appeal. As such,
Wickline has failed to show that he was denied effective
assistance of counsel on appeal.
Finally, Wickline raises a
host of other claims on appeal, all of which are unavailing. His
claims of prosecutorial misconduct are procedurally defaulted
and, in the alternative, fail on the merits.5
Specifically, Wickline asserts
that during the penalty phase, the prosecutor (1) inflamed the
passions and prejudices of the three-judge panel, (2) created
nonstatutory aggravating circumstances, and (3) improperly
commented on his right to remain silent.
The first argument fails
because the prosecutor's statements are not likely to have
misled the three-judge panel or prejudiced Wickline. With regard
to the second assertion, even assuming that the prosecutor's
arguments were improper, the panel did not list Wickline's
extensive criminal history, the absence of mitigating factors,
or behavior in prison as aggravating circumstances.
Wickline's third assertion
fails because the prosecutor's reference to the unsworn nature
of his testimony was isolated, is not likely to have misled the
three-judge panel or prejudiced him, and did not render the
entire trial and sentencing fundamentally unfair. Further, the
prosecutor's isolated comment regarding an absence of remorse
was not manifestly intended to reflect on Wickline's failure to
testify, nor would the panel have understood the statement as
such.
Wickline claims that even if
no single error is sufficient to merit granting the writ, the
cumulative effect of the errors rendered his trial fundamentally
unfair. According to Wickline, the cumulative effect is most
pervasive with respect to the discovery and Brady
violations.
The Ohio Supreme Court
rejected Wickline's Brady claims, as did the district
court. Both the district court and this court declined to grant
a certificate of appealability as to the Brady claims,
demonstrating that Wickline has failed to make "a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). Any constitutional errors, considered cumulatively,
were not so great as to render Wickline's trial fundamentally
unfair or his sentence and conviction unreliable.
Wickline's various arguments
that the Ohio death penalty scheme is unconstitutional likewise
fail. His assertions that the statute creates a mandatory death
penalty and allows trial courts to apply the death penalty in an
arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory manner were rejected
in Buell v. Mitchell, 274 F.3d 337, 367-68 (6th
Cir.2001). With regard to Wickline's argument that the statute
grants prosecutors broad discretion as to whether to seek
capital indictments, thereby allowing arbitrary charging
decisions, the Supreme Court held in Gregg v. Georgia,
428 U.S. 153, 199, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976), that
these "discretionary stages" do not implicate the concerns
expressed in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct.
2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972).
Wickline's contention that
Ohio's death penalty scheme encourages capitally charged
defendants to waive their right to a jury trial and to plead
guilty is procedurally defaulted, and, in the alternative, fails
because (1) Wickline did not plead guilty, and (2) the Supreme
Court has found that pleas are not invalid simply because of the
possibility of the death penalty. See Brady v. United States,
397 U.S. 742, 751, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970).
Wickline's arguments that the
trial court improperly considered duplicative aggravating
circumstances and that Ohio's appellate review did not cure any
error are unavailing. Both Supreme Court precedent and Ohio law
allow reweighing by the appellate courts when the sentencer has
considered an invalid aggravating circumstance. Here, the Ohio
Supreme Court assumed that the three-judge panel did not "artificially
inflate" the aggravating circumstances, implicitly concluding
that the trial court did not improperly weigh the aggravating
circumstances. in addition, the supreme court merged the
duplicative aggravating circumstances and independently weighed
the merged aggravating circumstance against the mitigating
factors. Accordingly, no constitutional violation is stated.
Fox v. Coyle, 271 F.3d 658, 667 (6th Cir.2001), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 97, 154 L.Ed.2d 27 (2002)
(No. 01-1754).
Wickline's claim that the Ohio
Supreme Court failed to grant him meaningful proportionality
review of his death sentence also fails. Because "proportionality
review is not required by the Constitution, states have great
latitude in defining the pool of cases used for comparison."
Buell, 274 F.3d at 369. In limiting proportionality review
to previous cases in which the death penalty has been imposed,
the Ohio Supreme Court has acted within the wide latitude
allowed. See id. Therefore, the Ohio Supreme Court did
not err in failing to compare Wickline's sentence to other cases
in which the death penalty was not imposed.
Wickline's first issue on appeal is
whether the district court erred in applying AEDPA to his
habeas petition. He argues that because he filed a notice of
intent and a motion for appointment of counsel prior to
April 24, 1996, AEDPA's effective date, his petition was
pending on that date. The Sixth Circuit rejected this
argument inWilliams v. Coyle, 167 F.3d 1036 (6th
Cir.1999). Wickline's argument that the Sixth Circuit's
reasoning in Williams has been overruled by a
subsequent Supreme Court case, Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000), was
rejected in a recent Sixth Circuit death penalty case,
Cooey v. Coyle, 289 F.3d 882 (6th Cir.2002), petition
for cert. filed (U.S. Sept. 24, 2002) (No. 92-212).
Accordingly, this court will follow Williams and
apply AEDPA to Wickline's habeas corpus petition. See
also Martin v. Mitchell, 280 F.3d 594, 602 (6th
Cir.2002), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 515,
154 L.Ed.2d 401 (2002) (holding AEDPA applicable when
petition was filed in June 1996 but motion to stay execution
was filed in November 1995).
First, the court must determine whether
there is a state procedural rule that is applicable to the
petitioner's claim and with which the petitioner failed to
complyId. at 138. "Second, the court must decide
whether the state courts actually enforced the state
procedural sanction." Id. Third, the court must
determine whether the state procedural rule "is an adequate
and independent state ground on which the state can rely to
foreclose review of a federal constitutional claim." Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). "A procedural rule is
adequate only when it is firmly established and regularly
followed at the time it was applied.... [and is] an
independent basis for disposition of a case if the state
courts actually relied on the procedural bar." Williams
v. Coyle, 260 F.3d 684, 693 (6th Cir.2001). Finally, if
the court answers the first three questions in the
affirmative, it will not review the procedurally defaulted
claim unless the petitioner can show cause for not following
the procedural rule and actual prejudice resulting from the
alleged constitutional violation. Maupin, 785 F.2d at
138-39.
At oral argument, the parties disputed
whether Wickline had requested an evidentiary hearing in
district court on his ineffective assistance of counsel
claim. In a document submitted after oral argument, Wickline
contends that his request of an evidentiary hearing is
indicated by the district court's order of September 21,
1998, which specifically addressed Wickline's argument (in
his motion to alter or amend) that the district court should
not have denied his habeas petition without holding an
evidentiary hearing on a number of issues, including his
ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The district court
held that Wickline had not shown that this claim was not
fairly considered by the state courts, nor that additional
evidence demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel
would be produced in any evidentiary hearing before it. As
stated above, an evidentiary hearing was conducted in the
trial court on Wickline's motion for a new trial, at which
his counsel testified. Despite this fact, there has never
been any proffer of evidence, nor any affidavit, regarding
any additional mitigating facts in Wickline's history.
Because he was given the opportunity to develop a factual
record in the state courts, Wickline is not entitled to an
evidentiary hearing in federal court
Wickline's claims pursuant toBrady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215
(1963), are not before this court. The Ohio Supreme Court
rejected those claims, and the district court agreed that
Wickline was not prejudiced by the alleged discovery
violations. Both the district court and this court declined
to grant a certificate of appealability with respect to the
Brady claims.
Ohio's contemporaneous objection rule
required Wickline to object to the prosecutor's statements
at trial, which he failed to do. The Ohio Supreme Court's
review for plain error constitutes enforcement of this
procedural rule, which this court has recognized as an
adequate and independent state ground barring federal habeas
reviewHinkle v. Randle, 271 F.3d 239, 244 (6th
Cir.2001). Wickline has failed to demonstrate that there is
a "reasonable probability" that, but for his counsel's
failure to object to the prosecutor's comments, the result
of the sentencing proceeding would have been different.
See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
Therefore, Wickline has not shown constitutionally
ineffective assistance excusing his failure to comply with
the contemporaneous objection rule.