State v. Gillard
Opinion
Gillard is not entitled to relief under App.R. 26(B). A prerequisite for such relief is a finding that “the performance of appellate counsel was deficient and the applicant was prejudiced by that deficiency.” App.R. 26(B)(9).
[365]*365Gillard was not denied the effective assistance of counsel on his first appeal as of right — i.e., his direct appeal to the court of appeals in 1987.1 His counsel won the appeal for him. We cannot see how the assistance of counsel could have been more effective than that.
Moreover, assuming that Gillard had a viable ineffective-assistance claim against his appellate counsel, he should have raised any such claim in his 1988 cross-appeal to this court. See Gillard III, 78 Ohio St.3d at 549, 679 N.E.2d at 279. In that proceeding, Gillard was represented by different counsel. Hence, there was no obstacle to his presenting to us any ineffective-assistance claim he may have had.2 Cf. State v. Lentz (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 527, 529-530, 639 N.E.2d 784, 785-786 (counsel cannot be expected to argue his own ineffectiveness).
The judgment of the court of appeals is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
708 N.E.2d 708 (State v. Gillard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.