Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Eugene Woodard’s application to reopen his criminal appeal under Ohio Appellate Rule 26(B). The court held that Woodard failed to raise a genuine issue of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under the Strickland standard, making it unnecessary to decide whether he had good cause for filing late.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Woodard's App.R. 26(B) application raised a genuine issue as to whether he was deprived of the effective assistance of appellate counsel.
- Whether Woodard had good cause for filing the App.R. 26(B) application more than 90 days after the court of appeals' judgment was journalized.
Holdings
- The Strickland v. Washington two-pronged analysis is the appropriate standard for determining whether an App.R. 26(B)(5) application raises a genuine issue as to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The applicant must show deficient performance and a reasonable probability of success if the omitted claims had been presented.
- Woodard failed to raise a genuine issue as to whether he was deprived of the effective assistance of appellate counsel before the court of appeals.
- The court did not decide whether Woodard had good cause for filing late because its disposition of the ineffective-assistance claim on the merits made resolution of that issue unnecessary.
Key quotations
“To show ineffective assistance, [appellant] must prove that his counsel were deficient for failing to raise the issues he now presents and that there was a reasonable probability of success had he presented those claims on appeal.” (¶ 4)
“We have reviewed Woodard’s assertions of deficient performance by appellate counsel and find that Woodard has failed to raise “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).” (¶ 5)
Factual background
Woodard was convicted of the aggravated murder of Mani Akram and sentenced to death, with additional convictions and prison sentences for aggravated robbery and receiving stolen property. After his direct appeal and postconviction proceedings were unsuccessful, he sought to reopen the appeal based on alleged ineffective assistance by appellate counsel. The application was filed more than 90 days after the court of appeals' judgment and was denied both as untimely and on the merits.
Procedural history
Woodard was convicted of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and receiving stolen property, and was sentenced to death for aggravated murder. His convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and his petition for postconviction relief was denied. He later filed an untimely App.R. 26(B) application alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; the court of appeals denied reopening for lack of good cause, res judicata, and failure to establish a genuine issue of ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed on the merits without deciding the good-cause issue.