green
Positive treatment
6.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Coffman v. State
See, e.g., Gaddy v. State, 952 So.2d 1149, 1171-72 (Ala.Crim.App.2006); Anderson v. State, unpublished, 2006 WL 62225 at *2 (Ark.2006); People v. Rodriguez, 914 P.2d 230, 303 (Colo.1996); Peterka v. State, 890 So.2d 219, 241-42 (Fla.2004); Briones v. State, 74 Haw. 442 , 848 P.2d 966, 978 (1993); Benson v. State, 780 N.E.2d 413, 421-23 (Ind.App.2002); State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534 , 660 N.E.2d 456, 458 (1996); Williamson v. State, 852 P.2d 167, 169 (Okla.Crim.App.1993); Commonwealth v. May, 587 Pa. 184 , 898 A.2d 559, 573-75 (2006); Carpenter v. State, 126 S.W.3d 879, 887-89 (Tenn.2004); St…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Rosemond
See State v. Simpson, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6719, ¶ 22 (“reaffirm[ing]” the court’s holding in State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534, 535 , 660 N.E.2d 456 (1996), “that the two-prong standard articulated in Strickland * * * applies to App.R. 26(B) applications”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Simpson (Slip Opinion)
See Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d at 535 , 660 N.E.2d 456 ; Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285 , 120 S.Ct. 746 , 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000). {¶ 18} As we have stated, under Strickland, in order to prevail on a claim that counsel was ineffective, a criminal defendant must show (1) that his counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) that that performance prejudiced him.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Fain
See State v. Reed (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 534 , 535, 660 N.E.2d 456 . .
discussed
Cited "see"
Davie v. Mitchell
(2×)
See State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534 , 660 N.E.2d 456, 458 (Ohio 1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Moore, Unpublished Decision (5-7-2002)
See, e.g., State v. Towns (Oct. 23, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71244, reopening disallowed (May 4, 2000), Motion No. 6308, at 4-5. {¶ 10} Notwithstanding the above, in order for the Court to grant the application for reopening, Moore must establish that "there is a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal." App.R. 26(B)(5). {¶ 11} In State v. Reed (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 534 , 535 , [ 1996-Ohio-21 ], 660 N.E.2d 456 , 458, we held that the two prong analysis found in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct 2052 , 80 L…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Borden, Unpublished Decision (2-9-2000)
McCann [1942], 317 U.S. 269 , 279 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 241 ); accord State v. Gibson (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 366 , 345 N.E.2d 399 , paragraph one of the syllabus; see, also, State v. Reed (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 534 , 535 , 660 N.E.2d 456 , 458 (citing Faretta for its "unequivoca[l]" declaration of the Sixth Amendment right of self-representation, and McKaskle v. Wiggins [1984], 465 U.S. 168 , 177 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 950 , fn. 8, for its holding that a denial of the right is "reversible error per se and therefore * * * not * * * subject to * * * harmless-error analysis").
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Patterson
See, also, State v. Reed (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 534 , 660 N.E.2d 456 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State of Ohio
v.
Pearce
v.
Pearce
No. 95-1583.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Feb 14, 1996.
James R. Pearce, pro se.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Per Curiam.
We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reason stated in its memorandum decision.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.