State v. Logan, 2012 Ohio 5713

Montez Logan, an inmate, timely sought to reopen this court’s judgment under App.R. 26(B) and Murnahan after the original conviction and sentence for multiple crimes.
Logan challenges his appellate counsel’s performance on four alleged grounds of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
The court previously affirmed Logan’s convictions for two counts of aggravated murder, three counts of attempted aggravated murder, and related firearm specifications and weapon-disability charge.
The State filed a brief opposing Logan’s reopening application; the matter centers on prejudice and whether counsel's strategic decisions were reasonable.
The appellate court reviews the Strickland standard, focusing on deficiency, prejudice, and restraint on adding new record material in assessing appellate counsel.
The court denies Logan’s application to reopen, holding that no demonstrated prejudice occurred and the arguments are either speculative or instructional to trial strategy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Logan show prejudice for not being present at the jury view?	Logan claims absence affected observations supporting alibi.	Record shows jury view occurred; absence cannot be presumed prejudicial without record.	No prejudice; absence at view not proven; view is not evidence.
Was it ineffective for not calling witnesses to bolster alibi defense?	Additional witnesses would support alibi and point to other suspects.	Testimony would be speculative; strategy; no demonstrated prejudice.	Prejudice not shown; speculation insufficient.
Was failure to hire an investigator for alibi defense ineffective assistance?	Investigator would have pursued surveillance and alibi corroboration.	Investigator participated in case prep; record lacks specifics; prejudice undisclosed.	No prejudice; arguments speculative and unproven.
Did defense counsel err by not moving to replace sleeping jurors to preserve due process?	Counsel should have pursued removal of other sleeping jurors when raised.	Counsel’s strategic choice; record shows one juror replaced; other juror sleeping unproven.	No reversible error; reasonable professional judgment supported by record.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standard)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (reaffirms Strickland standard in Ohio)
State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534 (Ohio 1996) (further articulates appellate counsel standards)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1983) (advocacy strategy: focus on strongest arguments)
State v. Allen, 77 Ohio St.3d 172 (Ohio 1996) (reinforces appellate counsel deference and strategy)
Warder, Bushnell & Glessner Co. v. Jacobs, 58 Ohio St. 77 (Ohio 1898) (limits appellate review to the record)
State v. Moore, 93 Ohio St.3d 649 (Ohio 2001) (no prejudice shown when extra-record evidence is speculative)
State v. Burke, 97 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio 2002) (declines claims lacking record support)