State v. Williams, 2013 Ohio 2314

Appellant Rasool H. Williams seeks to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B) after convictions for murder and having a weapon while under a disability; direct appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court was declined for lack of jurisdiction.
App.R. 26(B) permits reopening for claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based on issues not raised or inadequately developed on direct appeal.
Reopening requires a genuine issue that appellate counsel was ineffective, with potential prejudice to the defense if such issues were raised previously.
Appellant proposed four additional arguments (prosecutorial misconduct, other bad acts evidence, grand jury impeachment/refreshment, and ineffective assistance for failure to object) beyond the two original issues on appeal.
The court reviews under Strickland v. Washington (two-prong deficient performance and prejudice) and requires a colorable claim showing likely prejudice from such omissions.
The trial record evidence and the defense theory supported conviction, and the court found no reasonable probability that raising the additional issues would have changed the outcome; thus the reopening request was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising additional issues on appeal	Williams	Williams	Denied; no genuine Strickland prejudice shown
Whether prosecutorial misconduct denied Williams a fair trial	Williams	Williams	Denied; conduct did not deprive a fair trial or alter the outcome
Whether admission/handling of grand jury testimony for impeachment/refreshment was reversible error	Williams	Williams	Denied; abuse of discretion not shown; plain error not established

State v. Were, 120 Ohio St.3d 85 (2008-Ohio-5277) (ineffective assistance standard applies to appellate review of reopening)
State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.2d 160 (1990) (presumed competence of counsel and standards for appellate review)
State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153 (1988) (abuse of discretion review in evidentiary rulings)
State v. Sheppard, 91 Ohio St.3d 329 (2001) (standard for ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance (deficient performance and prejudice))
State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 451 (2006-Ohio-2987) (apellate counsel not required to raise every possible issue)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (advises tactical decisions on which issues to raise)
State v. Were, 120 Ohio St.3d 85 (2008-Ohio-5277) (see above (repeated citation included for emphasis))
State v. Bedford, 39 Ohio St.3d 122 (1988) (evidentiary matters reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (1984) (broader discretion in admitting/ excluding evidence)