Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Roderick Davie's application to reopen his direct appeal under Ohio Appellate Rule 26(B). The court held that Davie failed to establish a genuine issue regarding ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under the Strickland standard, and noted that his application was also untimely.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Davie established a genuine issue under App.R. 26(B)(5) concerning ineffective assistance of appellate counsel sufficient to reopen his direct appeal.
- Whether the court of appeals' denial of Davie's App.R. 26(B) application should be affirmed despite the application's untimeliness.
Holdings
- The two-pronged Strickland v. Washington analysis is the appropriate standard for determining whether an applicant has raised a genuine issue concerning ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under App.R. 26(B)(5).
- Davie failed to raise a genuine issue or colorable claim that he was deprived of effective assistance of appellate counsel, so reopening was properly denied.
Key quotations
“The two-pronged analysis found in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, is the appropriate standard to assess whether Davie has raised a “genuine issue” as to the ineffectiveness of appellate counsel in his request to reopen under App.R. 26(B)(5).” (134, ¶ 5)
“In none of the four propositions of law has Davie raised “a genuine issue as to whether [he] was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal” before the court of appeals, as required under App.R. 26(B)(5).” (134, ¶ 8)
Factual background
Davie was convicted of the aggravated murders of John Ira Coleman and Tracy Jefferys and sentenced to death. After the court of appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence, Davie filed an application to reopen his direct appeal alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. His application asserted that appellate counsel had been deficient in failing to raise four propositions of law.
Procedural history
Davie was convicted of two aggravated murders and sentenced to death. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the conviction and sentence in 1997. Davie later filed an application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; the court of appeals found the application untimely and, alternatively, rejected all asserted errors on the merits. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.