State v. Ballard
2025 Ohio 994
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Defendant Stevie Ashuade Lydell Ballard was convicted in connection to a street shooting in Mahoning County, Ohio, after allegedly approaching a vehicle, pulling a firearm from his waistband, and shooting at the driver.
- Eyewitnesses and associated individuals identified Ballard as the shooter, leading to his conviction and sentence, both affirmed on direct appeal.
- Ballard subsequently filed an application to reopen his appeal, asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under Ohio App.R. 26(B)(1).
- His claims included counsel’s failure to challenge his weapons disability conviction, argue self-defense, and attack the sufficiency of evidence on his concealed weapon conviction.
- The appellate court analyzed each argument under the Strickland two-prong test: deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Ballard's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weapons disability conviction | Appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing he was not properly informed of disability after juvenile adjudication; cited Rehaif. | Rehaif is federal, not applicable to Ohio law; no relevant precedent requires such notice in Ohio. | Ohio law does not require such notice; no ineffective assistance; claim overruled. |
| Self-defense not argued | Counsel should have argued state failed to disprove self-defense given ambiguous testimony about the shooter. | Ballard did not comply with self-defense procedural requirements and denied involvement. | No evidence or notice for self-defense; counsel not ineffective; claim overruled. |
| Sufficiency of evidence – concealed weapon | Counsel should have challenged sufficiency since there was no proof he concealed the weapon. | Eyewitness testified Ballard drew gun from waistband; sufficiency met by testimony. | Testimony supported conviction; no ineffectiveness; claim overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and resulting prejudice)
- State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 1998) (application of Strickland test for reopening appeals based on ineffective assistance)