State v. Ward
2017 Ohio 9247
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Buck A. Ward pled guilty to one count of robbery; sentenced to a maximum 36 months imprisonment, up to 3 years discretionary post-release control, restitution, and 48 days jail-time credit.
- Ward filed a pro se App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his direct appeal on grounds of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
- Ward’s application cited portions of the record but did not include the pertinent record excerpts as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(e).
- Ward also failed to submit the mandatory sworn statement describing appellate counsel’s alleged deficiencies and prejudice as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(d).
- The court reviewed Ward’s proposed claims (improper extradition, judicial bias, prosecutor breach of plea, jail-time credit, sentencing issues, counsel’s failure to request oral argument) and found them either unpreserved, previously decided, unsupported, or impossible to resolve without the record.
- Court denied the application to reopen for procedural noncompliance and because Ward failed to present a colorable ineffective-assistance-on-appeal claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to include record portions required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(e) | Appellee (State) argues the application must be denied because applicant didn’t supply the record excerpts he relied on | Ward cited and quoted parts of the record but did not append the required record portions | Denied: failure to include record portions is fatal; applicant bears responsibility to provide available record portions |
| Failure to file sworn statement under App.R. 26(B)(2)(d) | State asserts the sworn statement is mandatory and its absence requires denial | Ward did not file the required sworn statement describing counsel’s deficiency and prejudice | Denied: sworn-statement requirement is mandatory; failure alone is sufficient to deny reopening |
| Sufficiency of ineffective-assistance claim on merits (Strickland standard) | State contends Ward’s asserted errors are unsupported, previously considered, or undeveloped and thus not colorable | Ward alleged appellate counsel omitted several issues (extradition, bias, plea-breach, jail credit, sentencing, no oral argument) | Denied: even if procedural defects excused, Ward failed to show a colorable Strickland claim that would merit reopening |
| Specific trial/appellate errors (extradition, judicial bias, plea breach, jail credit, sentencing, oral argument) | State maintains these claims are either decided on appeal, legally unsupported, or cannot be evaluated without the record | Ward raised these specific errors as bases for appellate ineffectiveness | Court found these claims facially unsupported, previously addressed, or impossible to adjudicate on the incomplete record; no reopening granted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 457, 700 N.E.2d 613 (Ohio 1998) (applicant must supply record portions available to him; failure to do so supports denial)
- State v. Lechner, 72 Ohio St.3d 374, 650 N.E.2d 449 (Ohio 1995) (sworn-statement requirement under App.R. 26(B) is mandatory)
- State v. Sanders, 75 Ohio St.3d 607, 665 N.E.2d 199 (Ohio 1996) (applicant must show a colorable claim to reopen appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and resulting prejudice)