State v. Wachee, 2021 Ohio 4427

Knee Wachee was convicted of murder and felonious assault and sentenced to an indefinite term of 15 years to life.
On direct appeal, appointed appellate counsel argued only (1) insufficiency of the evidence and (2) manifest-weight error; this court affirmed the convictions and sentences.
Wachee filed an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his appeal, asserting appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising three issues: a defective indictment, an inadequate bill of particulars, and a speedy-trial violation.
The application largely recited portions of the court’s opinion, contained no developed legal argument or citation to the appellate record supporting the new issues, and failed to include the sworn statement required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(d).
The court applied the Strickland standard (as adopted for App.R. 26(B) claims), found Wachee did not show a colorable ineffective-assistance claim or point to record support for the proposed assignments of error, and denied reopening.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wachee)	Defendant's Argument (State/Court)	Held
Indictment defective	Indictment lacked necessary facts to establish elements	Indictment tracked statutory language, identified offenses and elements; Wachee gave no explanation or record support for a defect	Denied — no colorable claim shown
Bill of particulars inadequate	Bill failed to apprise appellant what to meet	Bill specified conduct, time, place, statutes and elements; appellant did not identify how it was deficient	Denied — no colorable claim shown
Speedy-trial violation	Appellant alleges denial of speedy trial	Appellant failed to say whether claim is statutory or constitutional, cite record, or argue tolling events; claim is fact‑dependent and unsupported	Denied — no colorable claim shown
Failure to include sworn statement under App.R.26(B)(2)(d)	N/A (applicant omitted required affidavit)	Rule requires sworn statement; omission undermines particularity and is proper ground for denial	Denied — application also fails for lack of required affidavit

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Smith, 95 Ohio St.3d 127 (App.R. 26(B) reopening requires showing a genuine issue of ineffective assistance on appeal)
State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 24 (defendant must show appellate counsel was deficient for not raising omitted issues)
State v. Myers, 102 Ohio St.3d 318 (Ohio Supreme Court applying Strickland for App.R. 26(B) claims)
State v. Burke, 97 Ohio St.3d 55 (App.R.26(B) allegations must be supported by the record)
State v. Buehner, 110 Ohio St.3d 403 (indictment purposes: notice and protection from double prosecution)
State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 (indictment that tracks statute and lists elements provides adequate notice)
State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Wolff, 132 Ohio St.3d 481 (bill of particulars serves to particularize alleged conduct)
State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169 (describes limited purpose of a bill of particulars)
State v. Sowell, 148 Ohio St.3d 554 (examples of multiple indictment challenges)
State v. Franklin, 72 Ohio St.3d 372 (failure to include required affidavit undermines App.R. 26(B) application)