State v. Freeman
2011 Ohio 5151
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Freeman, pro se, sought to reopen his previous appellate judgment under App.R. 26(B) after a conviction for rape and gross sexual imposition.
- The application for reopening contested the effectiveness of Freeman's appellate counsel and whether deficiencies would have changed the appellate outcome.
- The trial appellate judgment being reopened was State v. Freeman, Cuyahoga App. No. 95511, 2011-Ohio-2663, which affirmed the rape and gross sexual imposition convictions.
- The court applied a two-prong Strickland-based standard requiring a colorable claim of ineffective assistance on appeal and a reasonable probability of success if the claim had been raised on appeal.
- Freeman presented three proposed assignments of error but did not argue how counsel’s performance was deficient or prejudicial.
- The court held that Freeman failed to demonstrate deficient performance or prejudice and noted that mere recitation of issues does not establish a colorable ineffective-assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Freeman proved appellate counsel was ineffective. | Freeman argues deficiency and prejudice. | State contends no colorable claim of ineffectiveness. | Denied; no showing of deficiency or prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996) (two-prong Strickland analysis for reopening under App.R. 26(B))
- State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998) (colorable claim of ineffective assistance on appeal)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (appellate counsel's discretion to select issues)