Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
STATE OF OHIO v. EDWARD A. SMITH
Date: 01-30-2021
Case Number: 108727
Judge: MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN
Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Frank Romeo Zeleznikar, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
Free National Lawyer Directory
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Cleveland, Ohio - Criminal defense attorney represented Edward A. Smith with a application for reopening. Smith is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered in State v. Smith.
App.R. 26(B) provides that "[a] defendant in a criminal case may
apply for reopening of the appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence,
based on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.†(Emphasis added.)
Herein, the appellate judgment subject to the App.R. 26(B) application for
reopening was not concerned with Smith's conviction for the offense of aggravated
murder. The judgment of the trial court, that was subject to appeal, dealt with
resentencing and the denial of a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty entered by
Smith.
This court, in State v. Perotti, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 73743, 2005-
Ohio-2175, held that App.R. 26(B) applies only to the direct appeal of a criminal
conviction; it does not apply to subsequent postconviction proceedings, including
resentencing, motions to vacate sentences, and hearings to determine the validity of
the denial to withdraw a plea of guilty. See also State v. Tharp, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 104216, 2017-Ohio-2750; State v. Price, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 10328, 2016-
Ohio-711.
Moreover, Smith has failed to demonstrate that there exists a
reasonable probability that, were it not for appellate counsel's alleged errors on
appeal, the results of the appeal would have been different. We find no error with
regard to Smith's four proposed assignments of error. In fact, Smith fails to
demonstrate any prejudice through his four proposed assignments of error and that
the outcome of his direct appeal would have been different. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley,
42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1011, 110 S.Ct.
3258, 111 L.Ed.2d 767 (1990); State v. White, 82 Ohio St.3d 16, 23, 1998-Ohio 363,
693 N.E.2d 772. State v. Price, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103282, 2016-Ohio-711, ¶
About This Case
What was the outcome of STATE OF OHIO v. EDWARD A. SMITH?
The outcome was: Application denied.
Which court heard STATE OF OHIO v. EDWARD A. SMITH?
This case was heard in COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA, OH. The presiding judge was MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN.
Who were the attorneys in STATE OF OHIO v. EDWARD A. SMITH?
Plaintiff's attorney: Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Frank Romeo Zeleznikar, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. Defendant's attorney: Free National Lawyer Directory OR Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You..
When was STATE OF OHIO v. EDWARD A. SMITH decided?
This case was decided on January 30, 2021.