State v. Henry

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Henry

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

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 22, 1995·No. No. 94-2175·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

Pincite

645 N.E.2d 730 (State v. Henry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related