2021 Ohio 1994
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Anthony Linzey was indicted for one count of gross sexual imposition (third-degree felony) and pleaded no contest on January 22, 2019.
- Trial court sentenced Linzey to four years imprisonment, five years post-release control, and designated him a Tier II sex offender.
- This court affirmed in State v. Linzey, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 19 MA 0041 ("Linzey I").
- Linzey filed a timely App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his appeal, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and raising six assignments of error challenging the plea, counsel’s communications, investigation, and sentencing.
- The court reviewed the record (including a letter from appellate counsel reflecting a phone discussion) and Linzey’s plea colloquy and PSI, and found no arguable issues that would have likely changed the direct appeal outcome.
- The application to reopen was denied for failure to show deficient appellate performance and resulting prejudice under Strickland/App.R. 26(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Linzey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Appellate counsel communication | Counsel adequately communicated limits of appeal and issues raised | Counsel failed to meet/discuss strategy confidentially, impairing representation | No reasonable probability a different result; record (counsel letter) shows discussion; denial |
| 2) Plea knowingly and intelligently | Plea colloquy showed Linzey understood sentencing exposure | Trial counsel misled Linzey to expect ~6 months, so plea involuntary | No basis: plea colloquy and record show Linzey understood 1–5 year range; denial |
| 3) Trial counsel investigation (no physical/DNA evidence) | Case depended on credibility; no available physical evidence to test | Counsel ineffective for recommending plea despite lack of physical evidence | No reasonable probability testing/ investigation would change outcome; denial |
| 4) Sufficiency/manifest weight | N/A (State: not applicable after plea) | Conviction not supported by evidence / against manifest weight | Not reviewable after guilty/no contest plea; issue unavailable on direct appeal; denial |
| 5) Mental health and voluntariness / mitigation | Court considered PSI and criminal history; no record showing untreated condition affecting plea | Plea/sentence involuntary due to progressive mental health; court failed to investigate/consider as mitigation | No record support; Linzey denied medication at colloquy; mental-health mitigation not shown to alter appeal outcome; denial |
| 6) Failure to move to dismiss / cumulative error | No arguable basis for a motion to dismiss in the record | Trial counsel should have moved to dismiss for cumulative error / miscarriage of justice | No plausible motion presented or record basis; no reasonable probability of success; denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
- State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 24 (1998) (standard for appellate counsel failing to raise issues)
- State v. Adams, 146 Ohio St.3d 232 (2016) (appellate review limited to the record; cannot rely on evidence dehors the record)
- State v. Adkins, 161 Ohio App.3d 114 (2005) (failure to file a motion/objection requires showing reasonable probability that it would have succeeded)