State v. Westley, 2013 Ohio 1654

Westley was charged with murder with firearm specifications, weapon under disability, and concealed weapon.
He pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter and firearm specifications.
Westley moved pro se to withdraw the guilty plea before sentencing; trial counsel adopted the motion and it was denied.
In his initial appeal, Westley challenged the denial of withdrawal and claimed coercion and innocence; the court overruled the assignment of error.
Westley sought to reopen the appeal under App.R. 26(B) and Murnahan, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising certain issues.
The court denied reopening, holding the claims either meritsless, barred by res judicata, or outside the trial record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Westley shows a colorable claim of appellate-counsel ineffectiveness.	State contends no genuine issue exists under Strickland standards.	Westley argues appellate counsel failed to raise meritorious issues, including trial-counsel ineffectiveness.	Denied; no genuine issue shown.
Whether res judicata bars Westley's reopening claims.	State cites Were to bar previously raised or could have been raised claims.	Westley asserts new or viable claims not previously exhausted.	Denied; res judicata applies.
Whether trial-counsel ineffectiveness claims (items 1–4, and 7) could support reopening.	State argues these issues rely on outside-record information and are meritless on direct appeal.	Westley asserts counsel failed to investigate, withheld discovery, and pressured plea.	Denied; outside-record claims cannot form direct-appeal errors.
Whether Westley's speedy-trial rights were violated.	State notes tolling continuances for discovery and multiple continuances were justified, keeping within speedy-trial limits.	Westley asserts continuances were unnecessary and unapproved.	Denied; tolling events preserved speedy-trial time.

State v. Were, 120 Ohio St.3d 85 (2008-Ohio-5277) (two-prong Strickland standard for appellate counsel ineffectiveness)
State v. Sheppard, 91 Ohio St.3d 329 (2001) (ineffective assistance on appeal requires colorable claims)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (paraphrased standard for evaluating appellate counsel effectiveness)
State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 24 (1998) (burden to show colorable claim of ineffective assistance on appeal)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (counsel not required to raise every nonfrivolous issue)
State v. Gumm, 73 Ohio St.3d 413 (1995) (counsel not ineffective for failure to raise meritless issues)