State v. Fautenberry

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Fautenberry

677 N.E.2d 1194, 78 Ohio St. 3d 320

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 30, 1997·No. No. 96-2521·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgments of the court of appeals denying appellant’s application for reopening and motion for reconsideration for the same reasons articulated by the court of appeals. Further, 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 reject all of appellant's propositions of law raised before this court.

Judgments 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 judgments of the court of appeals denying appellant’s application for reopening and motion for reconsideration for the same reasons articulated by the court of appeals. Further, 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 reject all of appellant's propositions of law raised before this court.

Judgments affirmed.

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

State v. Fautenberry, 677 N.E.2d 1194, 78 Ohio St. 3d 320 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

677 N.E.2d 1194 (State v. Fautenberry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related