State v. Townsend

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 4398

Syllabus

App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, prejudicial conduct of appellate counsel, App.R. 26(B)(4) — ten-page limitation exceeded, failure to argue proposed assignments of error, collateral attack on original appellate judgment, right of allocution during resentencing, App.R. 16(A)(7) — reference to transcript and case citation. The appellant's App.R. 26(B) application for reopening is denied because appellate counsel was not ineffective on appeal. Applicant failed to present any viable argument that established how appellate counsel's performance was deficient and how he was prejudiced. In addition, 23 of the applicant's 26 proposed assignments of error raised in support of the application for reopening are barred from consideration because they constitute a collateral attack on the appellate decision that previously affirmed the applicant's convictions. The applicant has failed to establish any prejudice through the 1st, 14th, and 26th proposed assignments of error.