History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Richey
73 Ohio St. 3d 523
Ohio
1995
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. Further, we reject appellant’s additional propositions of law XXIII through XXV, asserting appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel before this court in his application for rehearing. Appellant’s 1992 appeal to this court was not a first appeal as of right; therefore, he had no constitutional right to counsel, and hence no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. See State v. Buell (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 1211, 639 N.E.2d 110.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur. Wright, J., dissents.





Dissenting Opinion

Wright, J.,

dissenting. I dissent for several reasons, most of which are included within Justice Herbert R. Brown’s dissent in State v. Richey (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 353, 373. 595 N.E.2d 915, 931.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Richey
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Aug 30, 1995
Citation: 73 Ohio St. 3d 523
Docket Number: No. 95-374
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.