State v. Ruediger
Citations
- 2025 Ohio 4370
Syllabus
App.R. 26(B), ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, failure to establish prejudice, mere recitation of assignments of error, improper arrest, exculpatory evidence, discovery, R.C. 2907.31(A), conflict of interest, photographs, witnesses lied under oath, prosecutorial misconduct, closing arguments, manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, res judicata. App.R. 26(B) provides a means of asserting claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. App.R. 26(B) provides for a two-stage process where an appellant must first make a threshold showing that appellate counsel was ineffective on appeal. State v. Leyh, 2022-Ohio-292, ¶ 18-19. The ineffectiveness of appellate counsel is judged using the same standard that applies to claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Even if the applicant establishes that an error by his appellate counsel was professionally unreasonable, he must establish that he was prejudiced; but for the unreasonable error there exists a reasonable probability that the results of his appeal would have been different. Reasonable probability, regarding an application for reopening, is defined as a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the appeal. State v. May, 2012-Ohio-5504, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.). In addition, the mere recitation of assignments of error, without the presentation of legal analysis, an explanation of how appellate counsel's performance on appeal was deficient, and how applicant was prejudiced, does not support the reopening of applicant's original appeal under App.R. 26(B). Herein, the applicant has failed to demonstrate how his appellate counsel performance on appeal was deficient and how he was prejudiced. In addition, many of the applicant's proposed assignments of error were already raised and found to be without merit. Res judicata prevents the applicant from raising in his application fo
Judges: Forbes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
- Smith v. PhillipsSupreme Court· 1982-02-22· cited 3,512×
- United States v. WatsonSupreme Court· 1975-10-06· cited 2,263×
- State v. LottOhio Supreme Court· 1990-06-06· cited 1,930×
- State v. SmithOhio Supreme Court· 1984-11-07· cited 1,321×
- State v. KeenanOhio Supreme Court· 1993-06-16· cited 535×
- State v. BallewOhio Supreme Court· 1996-08-07· cited 386×
- State v. SpiveyOhio Supreme Court· 1998-11-25· cited 313×
- State v. WhiteOhio Supreme Court· 1998-05-20· cited 293×
- State v. StephensOhio Supreme Court· 1970-11-10· cited 234×
- State v. Wilks (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2018-04-24· cited 127×
- State v. ManrossOhio Supreme Court· 1988-12-30· cited 108×
- State v. GillardOhio Supreme Court· 1997-06-11· cited 106×
- State v. Leyh (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2022-02-08· cited 76×
- State v. VirostekOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-04-28· cited 32×
- State v. MayOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-11-28· cited 18×
- State v. WilliamsOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-05-25· cited 9×
- State v. StevensOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-12-21· cited 9×
- State v. TownsendOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-12-05· cited 8×
- State v. AbrahamOhio Court of Appeals· 2025-04-18· cited 5×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.