Murderpedia

 

 

Juan Ignacio Blanco  

 

  MALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

  FEMALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

 

 

 
   

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
 
 
 
 
 
 
clemency report
 
 
 
 
 
 

Summary:

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.

 
 

Execution slated today; court rejects man's appeal

Cleveland Plain Dealer

AP - March 3, 2004

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.

AFFIRMED.

*****

Notes:

1

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).

2

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.

3

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

4

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.

5

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.

 
 


Christopher and Peggy Lerch, victims.

 

 

 
 
 
 
home last updates contact