State v. Henry

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Henry

645 N.E.2d 730, 71 Ohio St. 3d 564, 1995 Ohio LEXIS 481

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 22, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2175

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 645 N.E.2d 730 (State v. Henry) 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. Henry, 645 N.E.2d 730, 71 Ohio St. 3d 564, 1995 Ohio LEXIS 481 (Ohio 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant in his application to the court of appeals essentially stated that appellate counsel did not argue his case the way appellant thought he should have, or the way appellant himself would have argued it. This is not the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its entry denying the application for reopening.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant in his application to the court of appeals essentially stated that appellate counsel did not argue his case the way appellant thought he should have, or the way appellant himself would have argued it. This is not the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its entry denying the application for reopening.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

645 N.E.2d 730, 71 Ohio St. 3d 564, 1995 Ohio LEXIS 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-henry-ohio-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack