State v. Littlejohn, 2012 Ohio 1064

Appellant Mario A. Littlejohn seeks to reopen an appellate judgment under App.R. 26(B).
Original appellate judgment affirmed Littlejohn’s conviction for assault with peace officer specifications, possession of drugs, and trafficking in drugs.
Littlejohn alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and several trial issues as the basis for reopening.
Court applies Strickland/Reed standard: need both deficient performance and prejudice to establish a colorable claim.
Court finds the assignments either lack substantive argument or involve trial strategy, and finds no prejudice from alleged errors.
Application for reopening is denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel	Littlejohn argues counsel failed to raise meritorious issues.	Littlejohn cannot show deficient performance or prejudice.	Denied; no colorable, prejudicial issues shown.
Discovery/prosecutorial misconduct and mistrial	Prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence; mistrial warranted.	No prosecutorial misconduct; cure via cross-examination; no mistrial abuse.	Denied; no prejudice or abuse established.
Trial counsel ineffective for trial strategy	Counsel failed to argue meth/drug evidence issues effectively.	Strategic choices fall within trial strategy and are not basis for reopening.	Denied; no prejudice shown from strategy.
Sufficiency of the evidence for trafficking in drugs	Evidence insufficient to prove trafficking beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence supported all elements including juvenile specification.	Denied; record supported requisite elements beyond reasonable doubt.

State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534 (Ohio 1996) (two-prong Strickland standard for 26(B) reopening)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice standard)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (Supreme Court 1983) (appellate counsel discretion to focus on key issues)
State v. Gumm, 73 Ohio St.3d 413 (Ohio 1995) (counsel not ineffective for omitting non-meritless issues)
State v. Pasqualone, 121 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2009) (reopening requires prejudice; strategic trial decisions reversible only with prejudice)
State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139 (Ohio 2007) (reopening not warranted where prejudice not shown)
State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 (Ohio 2008) (due-process standard for sufficiency review (Jenks standard))
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard: whether any rational trier could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court 1971) (prosecution misconduct and remedy principles in trial)
State v. Johnson, 39 Ohio St.3d 48 (Ohio 1988) (prosecutorial misconduct discovery cure considerations)