State v. Vanderhorst, 2013 Ohio 1785

Vanderhorst timely filed an App.R. 26(B) reopening application seeking to reopen the judgment in State v. Vanderhorst, 8th Dist. No. 97242, 2012-Ohio-2762, which affirmed multiple convictions but vacated some sentences and remanded for resentencing.
He was convicted of two kidnapping counts, two aggravated robbery counts, one attempted murder count, and two felonious assault counts; the appellate court vacated certain sentences and remanded for resentencing.
Vanderhorst alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under App.R. 26(B)(5), contending counsel failed to raise meritorious issues on appeal.
The court discussed Strickland and related Ohio standards, emphasizing deference to counsel and that not every conceivable issue must be raised on appeal.
Vanderhorst argued the trial court erred by ordering consecutive three-year firearm specifications, asserting merger or allied-offense consequences under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) and related statutes.
The appellate court denied reopening, holding Vanderhorst failed to show a genuine colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and that the trial court did not abuse its sentencing under the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Vanderhorst shows a colorable IAC claim on appeal	Vanderhorst claims appellate counsel failed to raise merit-worthy issues.	State contends no prejudice; counsel reasonably chose issues to raise.	No; no genuine colorable IAC issue shown.
Whether the firearm specifications must merge or run consecutively	Vanderhorst argues merger or concurrent sentencing for gun specs, limiting total terms.	State argues statutory language requires consecutive firearms specs for enumerated offenses.	Court held the trial court did not abuse; multiple consecutive firearm specs were proper.

State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534 (1996-Ohio-21) (establishes two-prong Strickland standard for reopening App.R. 26(B)(5))
State v. Smith, 95 Ohio St.3d 127 (2002-Ohio-1753) (colorable claim and deference to counsel emphasized)
State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 25 (1998-Ohio-704) (requires genuine issue as to colorable IAC on appeal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deferential standard; strong presumption of reasonable assistance)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (applies that counsel need not raise every possible issue)
State v. Glenn, 2012-Ohio-3075 (8th Dist. No. 97314) (discusses R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) consolidation rules for firearm specs)
State v. Cassano, 8th Dist. No. 97228 (2012-Ohio-4047) (addresses firearm specifications and allied offenses context)
State v. Worth, 2012-Ohio-666 (10th Dist. No. 10AP-1125) (discusses discretion to impose third firearm spec under 2929.14(B)(1)(g))
State v. Israel, 2012-Ohio-4876 (12th Dist. No. CA2011-11-115) (consecutive vs concurrent firearm specs under 2929.14(B)(1)(g))
State v. Savage, 2012-Ohio-2435 (7th Dist. No. 11-MA-163) (cited in relation to firearm specifications sentencing)