State v. Ashcraft, 2021 Ohio 3897

Richard Ashcraft was indicted for fourth-degree felony assault on a police officer and fifth-degree felony aggravated possession of drugs arising from an incident at a VOA program.
Jury trial took place March 23–25, 2021; defense subpoenas for several witnesses were returned undelivered on the last day of trial.
The jury convicted Ashcraft on both counts; the trial court imposed consecutive prison terms (18 months + 6 months) and 900 days of post-release control.
On appeal Ashcraft raised a single assignment of error claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to timely subpoena witnesses and investigate a potential eyewitness.
Ashcraft did not file a trial transcript with the appeal and relied in part on facts dehors the record (conversations with counsel, unidentified eyewitness).
The appellate court applied Strickland, Knapp and App.R. principles, concluded the record was insufficient to review the ineffective-assistance claim, presumed regularity, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to timely subpoena witnesses and investigate an eyewitness	State: Appellant failed to provide the trial transcript or record showing what the witnesses would have testified to; appellate review therefore impossible and counsel's choices may be strategic	Ashcraft: Counsel delayed subpoenas, failed to investigate/locate an eyewitness, decisions were not strategic and deprived him of a defense	Court: Affirmed — appellant failed to supply necessary transcript or record; claims rely on matters outside the record; counsel decisions generally fall within trial strategy; no demonstrable prejudice shown

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (appellant bears duty to provide transcript; absence requires presumption of regularity)
Akro-Plastics v. Drake Industries, 115 Ohio App.3d 221 (1996) (brief allegations not in trial record cannot be considered on appeal)
State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (2001) (decision whether to call witnesses is trial strategy and generally not second-guessed on appeal)
State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516 (2001) (attorneys need not pursue every conceivable avenue; selective strategy is permissible)
United States v. Davenport, 986 F.2d 1047 (7th Cir. 1993) (attorneys are entitled to be selective in choosing which avenues to pursue)