State v. Durr

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Durr

674 N.E.2d 1379, 77 Ohio St. 3d 444

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 19, 1997·No. No. 96-1581·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying appellant’s application for reopening. Appellant has failed to establish the existence of a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. We further reject appellant’s propositions of law raised before this court for the same reasons articulated by the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying appellant’s application for reopening. Appellant has failed to establish the existence of a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. We further reject appellant’s propositions of law raised before this court for the same reasons articulated by the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

State v. Durr, 674 N.E.2d 1379, 77 Ohio St. 3d 444 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

674 N.E.2d 1379 (State v. Durr) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related