State v. Fautenberry

677 N.E.2d 1194, 78 Ohio St. 3d 320
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedApril 30, 1997
DocketNo. 96-2521
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 677 N.E.2d 1194 (State v. Fautenberry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Related

Fautenberry v. Mitchell
Sixth Circuit, 2008
State v. Sizemore
709 N.E.2d 943 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1998)
State v. Fautenberry
1997 Ohio 291 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
677 N.E.2d 1194, 78 Ohio St. 3d 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fautenberry-ohio-1997.