State v. Ware
2014 Ohio 815
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Ware seeks to reopen the appellate judgment in State v. Ware, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99374, 2013-Ohio-4492, which upheld his drug trafficking and criminal tools convictions but vacated forfeiture findings and remanded for a forfeiture hearing.
- App.R. 26(B) governs reopening for claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
- Ware argues two proposed assignments of error on reopening: failure to raise self-representation issue and ineffective assistance for not moving to suppress evidence.
- The court applies a two-prong Strickland/Reed standard requiring a genuine issue of colorable ineffective assistance and prejudice if raised on appeal.
- Record shows no clear, unequivocal request for self-representation and no suppression motion record; appellant failed to establish ineffective assistance; application for reopening denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel's failure to raise self-representation was deficient | Ware | Ware | Unpersuasive; no clear self-representation request in record |
| Whether trial counsel's failure to seek suppression was ineffective | Ware | Ware | Without record support; no prejudice shown; merits lack |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534 (1996) (two-prong Strickland analysis applied to reopen claims)
- State v. Smith, 95 Ohio St.3d 127 (2002) (colorable claim standard for ineffective assistance on appeal)
- State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 25 (1998) (reaffirms Strickland standard for reopening under App.R. 26(B))
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (counsel need not raise every issue on appeal)
- State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St.3d 94 (2002) (self-representation request must be timely and unequivocal)