State v. GillardState v. Gillard
Gillard is not entitled to relief under
Moreover, assuming that Gillard had a viable ineffective-assistance claim against his appellate counsel, he should have raised any such claim in his 1988 cross-appeal to this court. See Gillard III, 78 Ohio St.3d at 549,
The judgment of the court of appeals is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
. As we held in Gillard III,
. Jack A. Blakeslee represented Gillard before the court of appeals in 1987. After the state obtained leave to appeal, we granted Blakeslee’s motion to withdraw. We then appointed John N. . Mackey and Kathleen O. Tatarsky to represent Gillard in this court. Five months after Blakeslee withdrew, Mackey and Tatarsky filed Gillard’s delayed cross-appeal. Gillard’s merit brief on cross-appeal was signed by Mackey and Tatarsky and filed nearly eight months after Blakeslee withdrew.