Skip to main content

State v. Wright

Citations

  • 2023 Ohio 2895

Syllabus

The trial court erred in part in denying a hearing on appellant's petition for post-conviction relief. First, the court failed to distinguish between standards that apply to ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal and what is required for simply obtaining a hearing on post-conviction petitions. Contrary to the trial court's conclusions, a post-conviction petition does not have to definitively establish trial counsel's deficiency or whether appellant was prejudiced by the deficiency to warrant a hearing. Instead, the petition must be sufficient on its face to raise issues about whether appellant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel, and the claim must depend on factual allegations that cannot be decided by examining the record from the appellant's trial. In addition, the trial court erred in rejecting various claims on the basis that the same issues were raised on direct appeal. Where matters outside the record are presented, this is not an appropriate basis for rejecting post-conviction petitions. Furthermore, the trial court erred in categorically stating that failure to call an expert and relying instead on cross-examination did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. This is true in direct appeals, where courts are often forced to speculate, as this alone cannot overcome the strong presumption that counsel rendered reasonable assistance. However, in post-conviction situations, courts are able to consider matters outside the record and are, therefore, not confined to speculation. The trial court did not err in rejecting one expert's affidavit, which did not concern matters outside the record. The court also correctly rejected a claim based on trial counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress. While this claim did involve matters outside the record, the petition was insufficient on its face as there was no possible basis for suppression. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a hearing on some issues

Judges: Welbaum

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

43 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.