State v. Johnson, 2014 Ohio 770

Defendant Donald Lee Johnson pleaded no contest to aggravated robbery (with firearm specification), robbery, and aggravated drug possession; trial court considered a presentence investigation report (PSI) and sentenced him to 13 years, fines, and postrelease control.
After sentencing, newly appointed appellate counsel moved to supplement the record with the PSI to investigate sentencing issues; the State opposed disclosure.
The Twelfth District allowed supplementation of the record but denied disclosure of the PSI to appellate counsel, citing R.C. 2951.03(D)(1) as not authorizing post-sentencing disclosure to counsel.
The Twelfth District certified conflict with a Fourth District decision that had allowed appellate counsel access to the PSI.
The Ohio Supreme Court considered whether R.C. 2951.03’s term “defendant’s counsel” includes appellate counsel and whether appellate counsel may access the PSI for purposes of representing a defendant on a first appeal as of right.
The Court held that appellate counsel may obtain the PSI upon a proper showing, subject to the same confidentiality and return-under-seal restrictions in R.C. 2951.03 and R.C. 2953.08(F)(1), and reversed the court of appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether newly appointed appellate counsel is entitled under R.C. 2951.03 to obtain a copy of the PSI after sentencing	State: R.C. 2951.03 permits review only before sentencing and the statute’s language and confidentiality rules show legislature did not intend appellate counsel access	Johnson: “defendant’s counsel” includes appellate counsel; due process and effective-assistance principles require access so counsel can investigate sentencing issues on appeal	Court: "defendant’s counsel" includes appellate counsel; appellate counsel may access the PSI upon proper showing, subject to confidentiality and return requirements
Whether denying appellate counsel the PSI implicates due process / effective assistance on first appeal	State: No violation because PSI is not publicly available on appeal; record transcripts suffice and appellate court reviews PSI itself	Johnson: Denial limits counsel’s ability to investigate and present appellate claims, impairing effective assistance and a meaningful appeal	Court: Denial raises constitutional concerns; access is permitted to protect due process and effective assistance

Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1985) (first appeal as of right requires effective assistance of counsel)
State v. Hutton, 100 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2003) (right to effective assistance on first appeal as of right)