State v. Griffie
Ohio
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2024State v. Byrd Ohio Ct. App.
- 2024State v. Godsey Ohio Ct. App.
- 2024Valois-Perez v. Black N.D. Ohio
- 2023State v. Jackson Ohio Ct. App.
- 2022State v. Rider Ohio Ct. App.
- 2021State v. Artis Ohio Ct. App.
- 2021State v. Lloyd Ohio Ct. App.
- 2021State v. Williams Ohio Ct. App.
- 2020State v. Wallace-Lee Ohio Ct. App.
- 2020State v. Holcomb Ohio Ct. App.
Cites 1 case
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Griffie, Appellant.
Judges
- Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.
Attorneys
- Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Carley J. Ingram, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
- James Griffie, Jr., pro se.
We affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
In his application for reopening, appellant argued that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting an instruction on the lesser included offense of assault. However, appellant offers no support for his argument besides the record. App.R. 26(B)(2)(e) states that an application for reopening shall contain “[a]ny parts of the record available to the applicant and all supplemental affidavits upon which the applicant relies.” The record may reveal that trial counsel did not request a certain jury instruction, but, without more, the court of appeals would have to guess as to why trial counsel did not make the request. Failure to request instructions on lesser-included offenses is a matter of trial strategy and does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Clayton (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 45, 16 O.O.3d 35, 402 N.E.2d 1189, certiorari denied (1980), 449 U.S. 879, 101 S.Ct. 227, 66 L.Ed.2d 102.
Under App.R. 26(B)(5), an application for reopening shall be granted if there is a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal. Since appellant offered no proof of appellate counsel’s ineffective assistance besides the record, no genuine issue was raised. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.