State v. Driscoll

Citations

• 2020 Ohio 27

Syllabus

App.R. 26(B) application to reopen ineffective assistance of appellate counsel R.C. 2929.14(C) maximum and consecutive sentences mitigating factors severity of harm multiple offenses and prejudice. Defendant argued that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that maximum and consecutive sentences were improper because the defendant's actions were provoked and because the record did not support maximum and consecutive sentences. The defendant's multiple crimes against multiple individuals and his extensive criminal history supported the maximum and consecutive sentences.