2014 Ohio 1945
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- State v. Croom concerns appellate reconsideration and reopening for alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
- New counsel filed a motion claiming failure to investigate exculpatory evidence outside the trial record, including a video from a different robbery.
- The direct appeal record did not contain the outside evidence, and the court previously treated the issue as outside-record for direct appeal.
- The court held reconsideration untimely and reopening denied because appellate counsel was not ineffective for not briefing outside-record material.
- The decision reiterates limits on reviewing exculpatory evidence not in the trial record on direct appeal and in reopening proceedings.
- Appellate guidance includes standard Strickland-based prejudice and deference to counsel’s strategic choices: winnowing issues can be permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the reopening/reconsideration was timely | Croom (new counsel) contends timely filing under App.R. 26(B) | State argues untimely under App.R. 26(A)(1)(a) for reconsideration | Untimely; rejection of reconsideration |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to brief outside-record exculpatory evidence | Evidence outside record could exculpate; counsel erred | No merit because outside-record evidence cannot be considered on direct appeal | Not ineffective; outside-record material cannot be reviewed on direct appeal or reopened as ineffective assistance |
| Whether exculpatory video evidence could be reviewed in reopening | Video could show Brady-type exculpatory material | Video not part of trial record; outside record cannot be used | Denied; outside-record evidence cannot be reviewed in direct appeal or reopening |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (Ohio 1978) (records limitation; cannot add outside matter on appeal)
- State v. Hartman, 93 Ohio St.3d 274 (Ohio 2001) (if evidence outside the record is needed, not reviewable on direct appeal)
- State v. Were, 120 Ohio St.3d 85 (2008) (ineffective-assistance analysis; test under Strickland applies on reopening)
- State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (Ohio 1978) (same as Ishmail above; reiterated record-based review limits)
- Morgan v. Eads, 104 Ohio St.3d 42 (Ohio 2004) (bedrock principle: appellate court limited to trial record)
- State v. Hartman, 93 Ohio St.3d 274 (Ohio 2001) (see above)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance and prejudice)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1983) (counsel’s discretion to focus on issues; deference to professional judgment)
- State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (Ohio 2002) ( Brady-type exculpatory evidence standard)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)