Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court considers Raymond A. Smith’s appeal from the denial of his application to reopen his direct appeal under Ohio Appellate Rule 26(B). The court applies the Strickland standard and holds that Smith failed to establish a genuine issue regarding ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, affirming the court of appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Smith established a genuine issue under App.R. 26(B)(5) as to whether appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance.
- Whether Smith's application to reopen his direct appeal should be denied because he failed to satisfy the applicable ineffective-assistance standard.
Holdings
- The two-pronged Strickland standard governs whether an applicant has raised a genuine issue of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under App.R. 26(B)(5).
- Smith did not raise a genuine issue as to whether he was deprived of effective assistance of appellate counsel, so reopening of his direct appeal was unwarranted.
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 Smith has raised a “genuine issue” as to the ineffectiveness of appellate counsel in his request to reopen under App.R. 26(B)(5).” (¶ 6)
“Moreover, to justify reopening his appeal, Smith “bears the burden of establishing that there was a ‘genuine issue’ as to whether he has a ‘colorable claim’ of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal.”” (¶ 7)
Factual background
Smith was convicted of aggravated murder in the death of Ronald Lally and received a death sentence. After the conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, Smith alleged that appellate counsel had been ineffective for failing to raise four propositions of law. The Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that none of the propositions presented a genuine issue concerning ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Procedural history
Smith was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the conviction and sentence. After the court of appeals denied Smith's postconviction petition, the Supreme Court of Ohio declined review. Smith later filed a pro se application to reopen his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; the court of appeals denied the application, and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed, although on different grounds.