basis for an ineffectiveness claim in Ohio

34 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 17 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (14)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Powellgreen ohio · 2012 · cited in 30 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2013–2026 2 sentences 2026E.g., State v. Tabor, 2017-Ohio-8656, ¶ 34 (4th Dist.); State v. Leonard, 2009-Ohio-6191, ¶ 68 (4th Dist.); accord State v. Powell, 2012-Ohio-2577, ¶ 86 (a purely speculative argument cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim). 2026E.g., State v. Jenkins, 2014-Ohio-3123, ¶ 22 (4th Dist.); State v. Simmons, 2013-Ohio-2890, ¶ 25 (4th Dist.); State v. Halley, 2012-Ohio-1625, ¶ 25 (4th Dist.); State v. Leonard, 2009-Ohio-6191 , ¶ 68 (4th Dist.); accord State v. Washington App. Nos. 25CA37 and 25CA38 9 Powell, 2012-Ohio-2577, ¶ 86 (an argument that is purely speculative cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim). {¶25} However, in limited circumstances, courts may presume prejudice.	29	30
State v. Taborgreen ohioctapp · 2017 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2025–2026 2 sentences 2026E.g., State v. Tabor, 2017-Ohio-8656, ¶ 34 (4th Dist.); State v. Leonard, 2009-Ohio-6191 , ¶ 68 (4th Dist.); accord State v. Powell, 2012-Ohio-2577, ¶ 86 (a purely speculative argument cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim). 2026E.g., State v. Tabor, 2017-Ohio-8656, ¶ 34 (4th Dist.); State v. Leonard, 2009-Ohio-6191, ¶ 68 (4th Dist.); accord State v. Powell, 2012-Ohio-2577, ¶ 86 (a purely speculative argument cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim).	3	3
State v. Jenkinsgreen ohioctapp · 2014 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2025–2026 2 sentences 2026E.g., State v. Jenkins, 2014-Ohio-3123, ¶ 22 (4th Dist.); State v. Simmons, 2013-Ohio-2890, ¶ 25 (4th Dist.); State v. Halley, 2012-Ohio-1625, ¶ 25 (4th Dist.); State v. Leonard, 2009-Ohio-6191 , ¶ 68 (4th Dist.); accord State v. Washington App. Nos. 25CA37 and 25CA38 9 Powell, 2012-Ohio-2577, ¶ 86 (an argument that is purely speculative cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim). {¶25} However, in limited circumstances, courts may presume prejudice. 2026E.g., State v. Jenkins, 2014-Ohio-3123, ¶ 22 (4th Dist.); State v. Simmons, 2013-Ohio-2890, ¶ 25 (4th Dist.); accord State v. Powell, 2012- Ohio-2577, ¶ 86 (an argument that is purely speculative cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim). {¶124} With respect to appellant’s assertion that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a written closing argument, we observe that the record shows that, on February 10, 2025, appellant’s counsel filed a written closing argument (entitled “Conclusory Statement”).	3	3
State v. Simmonsgreen ohioctapp · 2013 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2025–2026 2 sentences 2026E.g., State v. Jenkins, 2014-Ohio-3123, ¶ 22 (4th Dist.); State v. Simmons, 2013-Ohio-2890, ¶ 25 (4th Dist.); State v. Halley, 2012-Ohio-1625, ¶ 25 (4th Dist.); State v. Leonard, 2009-Ohio-6191 , ¶ 68 (4th Dist.); accord State v. Washington App. Nos. 25CA37 and 25CA38 9 Powell, 2012-Ohio-2577, ¶ 86 (an argument that is purely speculative cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim). {¶25} However, in limited circumstances, courts may presume prejudice. 2026E.g., State v. Jenkins, 2014-Ohio-3123, ¶ 22 (4th Dist.); State v. Simmons, 2013-Ohio-2890, ¶ 25 (4th Dist.); accord State v. Powell, 2012- Ohio-2577, ¶ 86 (an argument that is purely speculative cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim). {¶124} With respect to appellant’s assertion that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a written closing argument, we observe that the record shows that, on February 10, 2025, appellant’s counsel filed a written closing argument (entitled “Conclusory Statement”).	3	3
Florida v. Nixongreen scotus · 2004 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 1 sentence 2026See Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 190 (2004) (noting that prejudice may be presumed in narrow circumstances); see also United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658-59 (1984); Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. 232, 237 (2019).	1	1
Garza v. Idahogreen scotus · 2019 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 1 sentence 2026See Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 190 (2004) (noting that prejudice may be presumed in narrow circumstances); see also United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658-59 (1984); Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. 232, 237 (2019).	1	1
United States v. Cronicgreen scotus · 1984 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 1 sentence 2026See Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 190 (2004) (noting that prejudice may be presumed in narrow circumstances); see also United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658-59 (1984); Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. 232, 237 (2019).	1	1
State v. Halleygreen ohioctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 1 sentence 2026E.g., State v. Jenkins, 2014-Ohio-3123, ¶ 22 (4th Dist.); State v. Simmons, 2013-Ohio-2890, ¶ 25 (4th Dist.); State v. Halley, 2012-Ohio-1625, ¶ 25 (4th Dist.); State v. Leonard, 2009-Ohio-6191 , ¶ 68 (4th Dist.); accord State v. Washington App. Nos. 25CA37 and 25CA38 9 Powell, 2012-Ohio-2577, ¶ 86 (an argument that is purely speculative cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim). {¶25} However, in limited circumstances, courts may presume prejudice.	1	1
State v. Russellgreen ohioctapp · 2022 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022Athens No. 08CA24, 2009-Ohio-6191 , ¶ 68; accord State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 , 2012-Ohio-2577 , 971 N.E.2d 865 , ¶ 86 (a purely speculative argument cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim). {¶107} Courts have held that “‘[a]n attorney’s decision not to request a particular jury instruction is a matter of trial [Cite as State v. Russell, 2022-Ohio-1746 .] strategy and does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.’” State v. Harrison, 3d Dist.	1	1
State v. Fearsgreen ohio · 1999 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018Athens No. 08CA24, 2009–Ohio–6191, ¶ 68; accord State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 , 2012–Ohio–2577, 971 N.E.2d 865 , ¶ 86 (stating that an argument that is purely speculative cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim). {¶15} Initially, we observe that “ ‘[t]he failure to object to error, alone, is not enough to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ” State v. Fears, 86 Ohio St.3d 329, 347 , 715 N.E.2d 136 (1999); quoting Pickaway App. No. 18CA1 12 State v. Holloway, 38 Ohio St.3d 239, 244 , 527 N.E.2d 831 (1988). 2018Athens No. 08CA24, 2009–Ohio–6191, ¶ 68; accord State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 , 2012–Ohio–2577, 971 N.E.2d 865 , ¶ 86 (stating that an argument that is purely speculative cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim). {¶15} Initially, we observe that “ ‘[t]he failure to object to error, alone, is not enough to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ” State v. Fears, 86 Ohio St.3d 329, 347 , 715 N.E.2d 136 (1999); quoting Pickaway App. No. 18CA1 12 State v. Holloway, 38 Ohio St.3d 239, 244 , 527 N.E.2d 831 (1988).	1	1
Strickland v. Washingtongreen scotus · 1984 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017Athens No. 08CA24, 2009–Ohio–6191, ¶68; accord State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 , 2012–Ohio–2577, 971 N.E.2d 865 , ¶86 (stating that an argument that is purely speculative cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim).6 6 In Weaver, the United States Supreme Court stated that “the prejudice inquiry is not meant to be applied in a ‘mechanical’ fashion.” Id. at 1911, quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696 . 2017Instead, “when a court is evaluating an ineffective-assistance claim, the ultimate inquiry must concentrate on ‘the fundamental fairness of the proceeding.’” Id. at 1911, quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696 .	1	1
Henry C. Miller v. Rod Francis, Wardengreen ca6 · 2001 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014Athens No. 08CA24, 2009-Ohio-6191 , ¶68; accord State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 , 2012-Ohio-2577 , 971 N.E.2d 865 , ¶86 (stating that an argument that is purely speculative cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim) {¶ 23} Furthermore, to establish the prejudice element when a defendant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel failing to excuse a biased juror, “the defendant ‘must show that the juror was actually biased against him.’” Mundt at ¶67 , quoting ROSS, 13CA3413 10 Miller v. Francis, 269 F.3d at 616 .	1	1
State v. Foustgreen ohio · 2004 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See State v. Foust, 105 Ohio St.3d 137 , 2004-Ohio-7006 , 823 N.E.2d 836, ¶ 108 . {¶ 87} Even assuming that defense counsel were deficient, Powell fails to show how the failure to preserve the remains of the house made a difference in the 247 outcome of the case. 2012See State v. Foust, 105 Ohio St.3d 137 , 2004-Ohio-7006 , 823 N.E.2d 836, ¶ 108 . {¶ 87} Even assuming that defense counsel were deficient, Powell fails to show how the failure to preserve the remains of the house made a difference in the 247 outcome of the case.	1	1
State v. Masongreen ohio · 1998 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006Thus, counsel made a “strategic trial decision” in presenting the defense theory of mitigation, and such decision “cannot be the basis for an ineffectiveness claim.” State v. Bryan, 101 Ohio St.3d 272 , 2004-Ohio-971 , 804 N.E.2d 433 , ¶ 190; see, also, State v. Mason (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 169 , 694 N.E.2d 932 . {¶ 234} Hand also argues that his counsel failed to form a reasonable mitigation strategy because of his counsel’s unwillingness to spend more time in presenting the defense mitigation case. 2006Thus, counsel made a “strategic trial decision” in presenting the defense theory of mitigation, and such decision “cannot be the basis for an ineffectiveness claim.” State v. Bryan, 101 Ohio St.3d 272 , 2004-Ohio-971 , 804 N.E.2d 433 , ¶ 190; see, also, State v. Mason (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 169 , 694 N.E.2d 932 . {¶ 234} Hand also argues that his counsel failed to form a reasonable mitigation strategy because of his counsel’s unwillingness to spend more time in presenting the defense mitigation case.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Kaufmann neutral ohioctapp · 2022 1 sentence 2023In this respect, appellant asserts counsel was ineffective for recommending appellant plead guilty rather than test the state’s evidence at trial and possibly obtain a jury instruction on a lesser included offense of misdemeanor sexual imposition. {¶26} In Kaufmann I, 2022-Ohio-3487, at ¶ 13 , this court emphasized: “[t]he mere fact that, if not for the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant would not have entered a guilty plea [is] not sufficient to establish the requisite connection between the guilty plea and the ineffective assistance. * * * Rather, ineffective assistance	1	2023–2023
State v. Jones, 06ca3116 (2-25-2008) green ohioctapp · 2008 1 sentence 2023Scioto No. 06CA3116, 2008-Ohio-968, ¶ 14 .	1	2023–2023
State v. Holloway green ohio · 1988 2 sentences 2018Athens No. 08CA24, 2009–Ohio–6191, ¶ 68; accord State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 , 2012–Ohio–2577, 971 N.E.2d 865 , ¶ 86 (stating that an argument that is purely speculative cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim). {¶15} Initially, we observe that “ ‘[t]he failure to object to error, alone, is not enough to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ” State v. Fears, 86 Ohio St.3d 329, 347 , 715 N.E.2d 136 (1999); quoting Pickaway App. No. 18CA1 12 State v. Holloway, 38 Ohio St.3d 239, 244 , 527 N.E.2d 831 (1988). 2018Athens No. 08CA24, 2009–Ohio–6191, ¶ 68; accord State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 , 2012–Ohio–2577, 971 N.E.2d 865 , ¶ 86 (stating that an argument that is purely speculative cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim). {¶15} Initially, we observe that “ ‘[t]he failure to object to error, alone, is not enough to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ” State v. Fears, 86 Ohio St.3d 329, 347 , 715 N.E.2d 136 (1999); quoting Pickaway App. No. 18CA1 12 State v. Holloway, 38 Ohio St.3d 239, 244 , 527 N.E.2d 831 (1988).	1	2018–2018
State v. Monford green ohioctapp · 2010 2 sentences 2014“So long as a juror indicates that he can be fair and impartial, counsel is not ineffective in declining to exercise a peremptory challenge.” State v. Monford, 190 Ohio App.3d 35 , 2010-Ohio-4732 , 940 N.E.2d 634 (10th Dist.), ¶94 (citations omitted); accord Trimble at ¶99 (determining that defendant could not establish prejudice resulting from trial counsel’s failure to excuse jurors when jurors indicated that they could decide the case based upon the facts presented at trial and could fairly and impartially decide the case). 2014“So long as a juror indicates that he can be fair and impartial, counsel is not ineffective in declining to exercise a peremptory challenge.” State v. Monford, 190 Ohio App.3d 35 , 2010-Ohio-4732 , 940 N.E.2d 634 (10th Dist.), ¶94 (citations omitted); accord Trimble at ¶99 (determining that defendant could not establish prejudice resulting from trial counsel’s failure to excuse jurors when jurors indicated that they could decide the case based upon the facts presented at trial and could fairly and impartially decide the case).	1	2014–2014
State v. Bryan green ohio · 2004 1 sentence 2006Thus, counsel made a “strategic trial decision” in presenting the defense theory of mitigation, and such decision “cannot be the basis for an ineffectiveness claim.” State v. Bryan, 101 Ohio St.3d 272 , 2004-Ohio-971 , 804 N.E.2d 433 , ¶ 190; see, also, State v. Mason (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 169 , 694 N.E.2d 932 . {¶ 234} Hand also argues that his counsel failed to form a reasonable mitigation strategy because of his counsel’s unwillingness to spend more time in presenting the defense mitigation case.	1	2006–2006

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.11 (8) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.22 (7) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.13 (7) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.352 (6) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.413 (6) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.414 (6) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.11 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.03 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.03 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.14 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.25 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08 (5)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

GA 195 (2000–2026) OH 34 (2006–2026) PA 5 (1976–2021) WA 2 (2001–2001) IL 2 (2019–2023)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check