State v. Simpson (Slip Opinion), 172 N.E.3d 97

Roger Simpson was convicted by a jury of multiple rape‑related felonies and sentenced to an aggregate 51 years; two codefendants later received 8‑ and 5‑year terms after plea bargains.
On direct appeal Simpson raised merger and ineffective‑trial‑counsel arguments; the court of appeals rejected both assignments of error.
Simpson filed an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his direct appeal, alleging appellate counsel never reviewed the case file and omitted meritorious issues: (1) admission of out‑of‑court statements, (2) extreme sentencing disparity (51 years vs. 8 and 5 years), and (3) failure to preserve/record rape‑shield hearing and proffered exhibit.
Simpson supported the application with an affidavit from his lead trial counsel stating appellate counsel never obtained or reviewed the case file and did not consult trial counsel about issues to raise.
The Twelfth District denied reopening after applying the Strickland standard, finding Simpson failed to show deficient appellate performance or prejudice; Simpson appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed: it reaffirmed Strickland’s two‑pronged standard for App.R. 26(B) applications and declined to adopt the Sixth Circuit’s Mapes checklist as a mandatory supplement. Concurring and dissenting opinions emphasized counsel’s serious omissions and urged more robust review in future App.R. 26(B) cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate standard for App.R. 26(B) reopening	Simpson: adopt the Mapes factors (6th Cir.) to assess omitted issues and counsel preparedness	State: Strickland already governs; Mapes factors unnecessary	Court reaffirmed Strickland two‑prong test; declined to mandate Mapes factors
Whether Simpson presented a colorable ineffective‑appellate‑counsel claim (failure to review file / omit sentencing disparity)	Appellate counsel never reviewed the record or consulted trial counsel and omitted a strong sentencing‑disparity claim	Appellate court: omitted claims lacked merit or would not have changed outcome; no genuine issue of deficient performance or prejudice	Court affirmed that Simpson failed to show a genuine issue of a colorable ineffective‑assistance claim under Strickland
Admissibility and preservation of rape‑shield proffer and out‑of‑court statements	Simpson: counsel should have challenged admission and preserved record/exhibit from in‑chambers rape‑shield proceedings	State: statements were admissible for effect on listener; proffered evidence likely excluded under rape‑shield law	Court of appeals (affirmed) found no indication a challenge would have succeeded and no resulting prejudice

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑pronged ineffective‑assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534 (1996) (Ohio adopted Strickland standard for App.R. 26(B) reopening)
Mapes v. Tate, 388 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 2004) (articulated non‑exhaustive checklist used by Sixth Circuit to evaluate omitted appellate issues)
Mapes v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 1999) (earlier Mapes decision compiling factors to evaluate appellate counsel’s omissions)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000) (recognizes Strickland as proper standard for appellate‑counsel claims)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) (indigent defendants have right to effective assistance on first appeal of right)
State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 24 (1998) (describes App.R. 26(B) requirement of a genuine issue showing a colorable ineffective‑assistance claim)