State v. Pankey, 428 N.E.2d 413 (Ohio 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Pankey, 428 N.E.2d 413 (Ohio 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 8× by 8 distinct cases, 2003–2021 · …substantive grounds for relief. ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2007 · …general conclusory allegations to the effect that a defendant has been denied effective assistance of counsel are inadequate as a matter of law to impose an evidentiary hearing. ⚠ not in text
220 citation events (174 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Bocanegra (ohioctapp, 2024-12-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Bocanegra
Ohio Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 283 (1999); State v. Kapper, 5 Ohio St.3d 36, 38-39 (1983); State v. Pankey, 68 Ohio St.2d 58, 58-59 (1981); State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 (1980), syllabus. {¶ 30} He did not meet his burden.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Murphy, Unpublished Decision (12-26-2000) (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ohio Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Id. at 142.
discussed Cited "see" Young v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution (2×)
S.D. Ohio · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pankey, 68 Ohio St. 2d at 59 , 428 N.E.2d 413 ; Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , 413 N.E.2d 819 , syllabus.
cited Cited "see" State v. Turner, Unpublished Decision (12-27-2005)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Pankey (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 58 , 59 (finding conclusory statements without evidentiary support are insufficient to require an evidentiary hearing).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Cunningham, Unpublished Decision (11-8-2004) (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Pankey (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 58 , 428 N.E.2d 413 . {¶ 22} We now review the claims presented by Cunningham alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase of the trial using the standard set forth above.
cited Cited "see" State v. Burgess, Unpublished Decision (8-20-2004)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See, State v. Pankey (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 58 , 59 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. McIntosh, Unpublished Decision (7-18-2003) (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pankey , 68 Ohio St.2d at 59 , 428 N.E.2d 413 ; Jackson , 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , 413 N.E.2d 819 , syllabus.
examined Cited "see" State v. Ushery, Unpublished Decision (7-19-2002) (4×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pankey, 68 Ohio St.2d at 59 , 428 N.E.2d 413 ; Jackson , 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , 413 N.E.2d 819 , syllabus.
discussed Cited "see" Bio-Medical Applications of Columbus, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Central Ohio
Ohio Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Braverman v. Spriggs (1980), 68 Ohio App. 2d 58 [ 22 O.O.3d 262 ], For the foregoing reasons and to the *159 extent indicated, defendant’s four assignments of error are sustained and plaintiff’s cross-assignment of error is overruled.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pankey v. State (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also, State v. Pankey, 68 Ohio St.2d 58 , 428 N.E.2d 413 (1981).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Widmer
Ohio Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also State v. Pankey, 68 Ohio St.2d 58, 59 (1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Jordan, 08ap-1074 (5-5-2009)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Pankey (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 58 (holding appellant's broad conclusory statements, as a matter of law, do not meet the requirements for an evidentiary hearing under Jackson ). {¶ 13} A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate (1) defense counsel's performance was so deficient that he or she was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (2) defense counsel's errors prejudiced defendant, depriving him or her of a trial whose result is reliable.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Battle, 06ap-863 (4-19-2007)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, State v. Pankey (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 58 (holding appellant's broad conclusory statements, as a matter of law, do not meet the requirements for an evidentiary hearing under Jackson). {¶ 13} In order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must first demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was so deficient that *Page 9 it was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2005)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, State v. Pankey (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 58 (holding appellant's broad conclusory statements, as a matter of law, do not meet the requirements for an evidentiary hearing under Jackson ). {¶ 6} Additionally, the United States Supreme Court set forth a two-pronged analysis to be applied when reviewing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Walker, Unpublished Decision (2-8-2005) (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, State v. Pankey (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 58 , 428 N.E.2d 413 (holding appellant's broad conclusory statements, as a matter of law, do not meet the requirements for an evidentiary hearing under Jackson ). {¶ 9} In support of his assignment of error, appellant reiterates the arguments stated in his post-conviction relief petitions.
examined Cited "see, e.g." State v. Fitzpatrick, Unpublished Decision (10-22-2004) (6×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
No. C-970150. 39 See State v. Pankey, 68 Ohio St.2d at 59 , 428 N.E.2d 413 ; State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , 413 N.E.2d 819 , syllabus. 40 See R.C. 2929.05 (A). 41 State v. Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321 , 2004-Ohio-3167 , 810 N.E.2d 927 , at ¶ 87-90. 42 R.C. 2929.04 (B)(3). 43 Id. at ¶ 104. 44 Id. at ¶ 110-111. 45 See State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d at 143 , 538 N.E.2d 373 ; see, also, R.C. 2929.03 (D)(3). 46 See State v. Pankey, 68 Ohio St.2d at 59 , 428 N.E.2d 413 ; State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , 413 N.E.2d 819 , syllabus. 47 See State v. Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321 , 2…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Miller, Unpublished Decision (9-12-2003)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, State v. Pankey (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 58 , 58-59 . {¶ 4} Here, both Miller's ineffective assistance of counsel claim and his juror misconduct claim were properly dismissed by the trial court without an evidentiary hearing on the basis of res judicata.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Kapper (2×)
Ohio · 1983 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., State v. Pankey (1981), 68 Ohio St. 2d 58, 59 [ 22 O.O.3d 262 ].
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State of Ohio
v.
Pankey
No. 80-1316.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Nov 18, 1981.
428 N.E.2d 413
1981 Ohio LEXIS 618
Mr. Vincent E. Gilmartin, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. John A. Kicz, for appellee., Mr. J. Tullis Rogers, Mr. Randall M. Dana and Mr. Harry R. Reinhart, for appellant.
Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Krupansky, Locher, Sweeney.
Cited by 106 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing before ruling on appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief. We hold that no hearing was required under the facts in this case.

Appellant claims that his counsel’s unfamiliarity with his cause prior to his appearance before the court caused an unintelligent waiver of his rights.

This court recently set forth the test for obtaining a hearing when a petition for post-conviction relief is filed. The[*59] syllabus, in State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 107, is as follows:

“In a petition for post-conviction relief, which asserts ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner bears the initial burden to submit evidentiary documents containing sufficient operative facts to demonstrate the lack of competent counsel and that the defense was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness.”

Appellant cites various occurrences in order to illustrate his counsel’s ineffectiveness. These allegations, however, do not meet the burden of proof established by this court in Jackson, supra. Appellant has not submitted “evidentiary documents containing sufficient operative facts to demonstrate the lack of competent counsel and that the defense was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness.” Rather, he has made broad conclusory statements which, as a matter of law, do not meet the requirements for an evidentiary hearing.

Furthermore, the record contradicts many of appellant’s assertions. For example, appellant argues that his voluntary, written waiver of his rights was made unintelligently. Yet, the record shows that the court apprised appellant of his constitutional rights. The trial court meticulously and thoroughly examined appellant to insure a voluntary and intelligent waiver. The record also demonstrates that counsel had previously explained the circumstances to appellant.

Based upon our discussion in Jackson, supra, and upon the facts herein, we find that the trial court properly dismissed appellant’s petition to vacate.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C. J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and Krupansky, JJ., concur.