State v. Bradley - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as State v. Bradley, 91 Ohio St.3d 570, 2001-Ohio-116.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BRADLEY, APPELLANT.
[Cite as State v. Bradley (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 570.]
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from judgment of
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
-- Application denied when applicant fails to raise a genuine issue of
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel -- Court of appeals' denial of
application to reopen appeal affirmed.
(No. 00-1728 -- Submitted January 30, 2001 -- Decided June 6, 2001.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Scioto County, No. 1583.
__________________

Per Curiam. Appellant, William J. Bradley, challenges the denial of his
application to reopen his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B).

Bradley was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. The
Court of Appeals for Scioto County affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v.
Bradley (Sept. 22, 1987), Scioto App. No. 1583, unreported, 1987 WL 17303.
We affirmed the court of appeals' judgment. State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio
St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373. The Supreme Court of the United States denied
certiorari. Bradley v. Ohio (1990), 497 U.S. 1011, 110 S.Ct. 3258, 111 L.Ed.2d
768.

On February 1, 2000, Bradley filed an App.R. 26(B) application in the
court of appeals. App.R. 26(B)(1) requires that an application to reopen be filed
within ninety days from journalization of the judgment, absent good cause for
filing later. The court of appeals found that Bradley had failed to show good
cause for not filing his application until February 1, 2000.

App.R. 26(B)(5) also requires that the applicant show "a genuine issue as
to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
appeal." The court of appeals found that Bradley's application failed to clear this
hurdle as well, remarking that "even if the application was considered on its
merits we would still find no `genuine issues' as to whether [Bradley] was
deprived of effective assistance of appellate counsel." Accordingly, the court of
appeals denied the application to reopen Bradley's direct appeal. From that
denial, Bradley appeals.
Strickland
v.
Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80
L.Ed.2d 674, sets forth the standard for judging ineffective-assistance claims:
"When a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness of counsel's
assistance, the defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness." Id. at 687-688, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 80
L.Ed.2d at 693. Furthermore, "[t]he defendant must show that there is a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of
the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. at 694, 104
S.Ct. at 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d at 698. See, also, State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136,
538 N.E.2d 373, paragraphs two and three of the syllabus.
Strickland charges us to "[apply] a heavy measure of deference to
counsel's judgments," 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066, 80 L.Ed.2d at 695, and
to "indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide
range of reasonable professional assistance." Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065, 80
L.Ed.2d at 694. Moreover, we must bear in mind that appellate counsel need not
raise every possible issue in order to render constitutionally effective assistance.
See Jones v. Barnes (1983), 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987.
The
two-part
Strickland test "is the appropriate standard to assess a
defense request for reopening under App.R. 26(B)(5)." State v. Spivey (1998), 84
Ohio St.3d 24, 25, 701 N.E.2d 696, 697. Applying the Strickland test, we agree
with the court of appeals' conclusion that Bradley has failed to raise a genuine
2

January Term, 2001
issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________

David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and Angela Miller, Assistant
State Public Defender, for appellant.
__________________
3