State v. Smith

26 Citing cases

  1. Cunningham v. Hudson

    CASE NO. 3:06CV0167 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 7, 2010)   Cited 7 times
    In Cunningham v. Hudson, No. 3:06CV0167, 2010 WL 5092705 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 7, 2010), a district court rejected a petitioner's claim that his death sentence violated Apprendi and Ring because the jury did not determine his role in the offense, his mental state, and his relative culpability.

    Therefore, in order for an appellant to overcome the presumption of effectiveness, he "must submit sufficient operative facts or evidentiary documents which, if proven, would show that appellant was prejudiced by said ineffective counsel." State v. Smith (1987), 36 Ohio App. 3d 162, 163, 521 N.E.2d 1112. Until appellant has proven prejudice as a result of ineffective counsel, an evidentiary hearing is not required.

  2. State v. Frazier

    2008 Ohio 5027 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Accordingly, "a petitioner in a postconviction relief proceeding must submit sufficient operative facts or evidentiary material which, if proven, would show petitioner was prejudiced by said ineffective assistance of counsel." Id., citing State v. Smith (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 162, 163. Just as a winning defense strategy is not required for effective assistance of counsel, "[debatable tactics do not necessarily constitute a violation of defense counsel's duties."

  3. State v. Wilhelm

    2006 Ohio 2450 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)

    This evidence includes trial counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress. Under these circumstances, res judicata may not be a bar to postconviction relief. State v. Smith (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 162, 165. {¶ 12} The State also asserts appellant's post-conviction relief should be dismissed as untimely.

  4. State v. Speed

    2005 Ohio 4423 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 1 times

    In order to overcome the presumption of counsel's competency, Speed is required to submit sufficient operative facts or documents that, if proven, would show that he was prejudiced. State v. Smith (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 162, 163. We particularly note the wording "if proven."

  5. State v. Adams

    2005 Ohio 348 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 4 times

    To overcome the presumption of trial counsel's competency, a postconviction petitioner must submit sufficient operative facts or evidentiary documents that, if proven, would show that the petitioner was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Smith (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 162, 163. {¶ 65} As an initial matter, we note that the trial court erred by barring this cause of action by the doctrine of res judicata.

  6. State v. Cunningham

    2004 Ohio 5892 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 5 times

    {¶ 21} Therefore, in order for an appellant to overcome the presumption of effectiveness, he "must submit sufficient operative facts or evidentiary documents which, if proven, would show that appellant was prejudiced by said ineffective counsel." State v. Smith (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 162, 163, 521 N.E.2d 1112. Until appellant has proven prejudice as a result of ineffective counsel, an evidentiary hearing is not required.

  7. State v. Smith

    Court of Appeals No. L-99-1310, Trial Court No. CR-93-6197 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2001)   Cited 4 times

    In order to overcome this presumption of effective assistance, a petitioner in a postconviction relief proceeding must submit sufficient operative facts or evidentiary material which, if proven, would show petitioner was prejudiced by said ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Smith (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 162, 163. Effective assistance of defense counsel does not equate with a winning defense strategy.

  8. City of Rocky River v. Kline

    No. 77057 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2000)

    Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687. A properly licensed attorney is presumed to execute his duties in an ethical and competent manner. State v. Smith (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 162 . Ineffectiveness is demonstrated by showing that counsel's errors were so serious that he or she failed to function as the counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. State v. Hamblin (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 153.

  9. State v. Norman

    No. 76140 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2000)   Cited 1 times

    A properly licensed attorney is presumed to execute his duties in an ethical and competent manner. State v. Smith (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 162 . Ineffectiveness is demonstrated by showing that counsel's errors were so serious that he or she failed to function as the counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

  10. State v. Brooks

    Nos. 75711, 75712 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2000)   Cited 4 times

    A properly licensed attorney is presumed to execute his duties in an ethical and competent manner. State v. Smith (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 162. Ineffectiveness is demonstrated by showing that counsel's errors were so serious that he or she failed to function as the counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.