State v. Hill

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the denial of Genesis Hill’s application to reopen his criminal appeal under Ohio Appellate Rule 26(B). The court held that Hill failed to establish a genuine issue regarding ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under the Strickland standard, noting that counsel had raised numerous assignments of error, could not rely on facts outside the record, and was not required to raise waived or legally unsupported claims.

Holdings

1. The two-pronged analysis from Strickland v. Washington is the appropriate standard for determining whether an applicant has raised a genuine issue concerning the ineffectiveness of appellate counsel in an App.R. 26(B) reopening application.
2. Hill failed to establish a genuine issue that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and therefore he was not entitled to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B).

Questions Presented

1. What standard governs whether an applicant has established a genuine issue of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under Ohio Appellate Rule 26(B)?
2. Whether Hill demonstrated deficient performance and a reasonable probability of success on appeal sufficient to justify reopening his appeal.
3. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise additional assignments of error, including claims based on matters outside the trial record, waived issues, and issues lacking sufficient merit.

Disposition

affirmed