prompt hearing in Ohio

2019In making such a determination, the court shall consider, in addition to the petition, the supporting affidavits, and the documentary evidence, all the files and records pertaining to the proceedings against the petitioner, including, but not limited to, the indictment, the court’s journal entries, the journalized records of the clerk of the court, and the court reporter’s transcript.” R.C. 2953.21(D). {¶13} “Unless the petition and the files and records of the case show the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues even if a direct appeal

2019In making such a determination, the court shall consider, in addition to the petition, the supporting affidavits, and the documentary evidence, all the files and records pertaining to the proceedings against the petitioner, including, but not limited to, the indictment, the court’s journal entries, the journalized records of the clerk of the court, and the court reporter’s transcript.” R.C. 2953.21(D). {¶13} “Unless the petition and the files and records of the case show the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues even if a direct appeal

2023“If the record does not on its face disprove the petitioner's claim, then the court is required to ‘proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues.’ ” Id., quoting R.C. 2953.21(F). {¶ 22} An abuse of discretion standard applies to decisions granting or denying post-conviction relief, “including the decision whether to afford the petitioner a hearing.” State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446 , 2022-Ohio-3991 , 205 N.E.3d 513, ¶ 38 , citing State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 , 2006-Ohio-6679 , 860 N.E.2d 77 , ¶ 51-52 and 58.

2023“If the record does not on its face disprove the petitioner's claim, then the court is required to ‘proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues.’ ” Id., quoting R.C. 2953.21(F). {¶ 22} An abuse of discretion standard applies to decisions granting or denying post-conviction relief, “including the decision whether to afford the petitioner a hearing.” State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446 , 2022-Ohio-3991 , 205 N.E.3d 513, ¶ 38 , citing State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 , 2006-Ohio-6679 , 860 N.E.2d 77 , ¶ 51-52 and 58.

2021Further, Marshall asserts in his merit brief that judicial advisement into an attorney’s potential conflict of interest in a case involving multiple representation is an “unmitigated good,” because what the court loses in a small amount of time it will “regain tenfold in both the appearance and fact of fairness, transparency, and professionalism.” (Emphasis sic.) Marshall also calls our attention to a number of jurisdictions that require judicial inquiry into multiple representation by rule.4 {¶ 22} As we observed in Manross, we agree that the better practice is for the trial court to make a p

2021Further, Marshall asserts in his merit brief that judicial advisement into an attorney’s potential conflict of interest in a case involving multiple representation is an “unmitigated good,” because what the court loses in a small amount of time it will “regain tenfold in both the appearance and fact of fairness, transparency, and professionalism.” (Emphasis sic.) Marshall also calls our attention to a number of jurisdictions that require judicial inquiry into multiple representation by rule.4 {¶ 22} As we observed in Manross, we agree that the better practice is for the trial court to make a p

1996R.C. 2953.21(E) provides: “Unless the petition and the files and records of the case show the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues, hold the hearing, and make and file written findings of fact and conclusions of law upon entering judgment.” If the trial court “finds no grounds for a hearing, the court is required to make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the reasons for dismissal and as to the grounds for relief relied upon in the petition.” State v. Lester (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 51 , 70 O.O.2d 150 , 322 N.E.2d 656

1996R.C. 2953.21(E) provides: “Unless the petition and the files and records of the case show the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues, hold the hearing, and make and file written findings of fact and conclusions of law upon entering judgment.” If the trial court “finds no grounds for a hearing, the court is required to make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the reasons for dismissal and as to the grounds for relief relied upon in the petition.” State v. Lester (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 51 , 70 O.O.2d 150 , 322 N.E.2d 656

2000State v. Strutton (1988), 62 Ohio App.3d 248 , 251 .

1999State v. Strutton (1988), 62 Ohio App.3d 248 , 251 .

2024Postconviction review of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims {¶24} In order for an indigent petitioner to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing in a postconviction relief proceeding on a claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, the two-part analysis set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) is to be applied.

2024Postconviction review of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims {¶24} In order for an indigent petitioner to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing in a postconviction relief proceeding on a claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, the two-part analysis set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) is to be applied.

2014Cuyahoga No. 83601, 2004-Ohio-3868 . {¶26} In considering a petition, the pivotal question for the trial court is whether, upon consideration of all the files and records pertaining to the underlying proceedings and any supporting evidence attached, the petitioner has set forth “sufficient operative facts to establish substantive grounds for relief.” Calhoun, paragraph two of the syllabus.

2008The statute specifically reads: "Unless the petition and the files and records of the case show the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues even if a direct appeal of the case is pending." State v. Jones , Cuyahoga App. No. 83601, 2004-Ohio-3868 ; R.C. 2953.21 (E).

2008No. 2007-G-2794, 2008-Ohio-3738 , at ¶ 28 , citing State v. Allen (Sept. 23, 1994), 11th Dist.

2008No. 2007-G-2794, 2008-Ohio-3738 , at ¶ 28 , citing State v. Allen (Sept. 23, 1994), 11th Dist.

1993While the better practice for the trial court is to make a prompt inquiry and advise each defendant of his or her right to effective assistance of counsel, “[u]nless the trial court knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists, the trial court need not initiate an inquiry.” Id. at 347 , 100 S.Ct. at 1717 , 64 L.Ed.2d at 346 .

1993While the better practice for the trial court is to make a prompt inquiry and advise each defendant of his or her right to effective assistance of counsel, “[u]nless the trial court knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists, the trial court need not initiate an inquiry.” Id. at 347 , 100 S.Ct. at 1717 , 64 L.Ed.2d at 346 .

2024Further, his claim must depend “on factual allegations that cannot be determined by examining the record from his trial.” Id.

2023But where the record “does not on its face disprove the petitioner’s claim, * * * the 16. court is required to ‘proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues.’” Id., citing R.C. 2953.21(F).

2024“A petition for post-conviction relief is subject to dismissal without a hearing when the record, including the dialogue conducted between the court and the defendant pursuant to Crim.R. 11, indicates that the petitioner is not entitled to relief and that the petitioner failed to submit evidentiary documents containing sufficient operative facts to demonstrate that the guilty plea was coerced or induced by false promises.” State v. Kapper, 5 Ohio St.3d 36, 38 , 448 N.E.2d 823 (1983); State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 291 , 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999). 6 Case No. 2023-P-0076 {¶16} Courts of appeal

2024“A petition for post-conviction relief is subject to dismissal without a hearing when the record, including the dialogue conducted between the court and the defendant pursuant to Crim.R. 11, indicates that the petitioner is not entitled to relief and that the petitioner failed to submit evidentiary documents containing sufficient operative facts to demonstrate that the guilty plea was coerced or induced by false promises.” State v. Kapper, 5 Ohio St.3d 36, 38 , 448 N.E.2d 823 (1983); State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 291 , 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999). 6 Case No. 2023-P-0076 {¶16} Courts of appeal

2024Madison No. CA2019-05-012, 2020-Ohio-1067, ¶ 6 .

2024Madison No. CA2019-05-012, 2020-Ohio-1067, ¶ 6 .

2023Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989).

2023Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989).

2019In making such a determination, the court shall consider, in addition to the petition, the supporting affidavits, and the documentary evidence, all the files and records pertaining to the proceedings against the petitioner, including, but not limited to, the indictment, the court’s journal entries, the journalized records of the clerk of the court, and the court reporter’s transcript.” R.C. 2953.21(D). {¶13} “Unless the petition and the files and records of the case show the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues even if a direct appeal

2019In making such a determination, the court shall consider, in addition to the petition, the supporting affidavits, and the documentary evidence, all the files and records pertaining to the proceedings against the petitioner, including, but not limited to, the indictment, the court’s journal entries, the journalized records of the clerk of the court, and the court reporter’s transcript.” R.C. 2953.21(D). {¶13} “Unless the petition and the files and records of the case show the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues even if a direct appeal

2005State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , 111 ; State v. Kapper (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 36 , 38 ; State v. Pankey (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 58 , 59 .

2004State v. Pankey (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 58 , 58 ; State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , syllabus.

1995Although a great many accused persons seek to put off the confrontation as long as possible, the right to a prompt inquiry into criminal charges is fundamental and the duty of the charging authority is to provide a prompt trial.” Id. at 398 U.S. 37 -38, 90 S.Ct. at 1568-1569 , 26 L.Ed.2d at 32 .

1991While petitioner’s silence did not indicate a waiver to his right to a speedy hearing, see Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at 528 , 92 S.Ct. at 2191 , 33 L.Ed.2d at 115-116 , the fact that petitioner “made no demand for a prompt hearing * * * makes it ‘difficult for [petitioner] to prove that he was denied a speedy [hearing].’ ” Hanahan, supra, 693 F.2d at 635 (citing Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at 532 , 92 S.Ct. at 2193 , 33 L.Ed.2d at 117-118 ).

2023“If the record does not on its face disprove the petitioner's claim, then the court is required to ‘proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues.’ ” Id., quoting R.C. 2953.21(F). {¶ 22} An abuse of discretion standard applies to decisions granting or denying post-conviction relief, “including the decision whether to afford the petitioner a hearing.” State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446 , 2022-Ohio-3991 , 205 N.E.3d 513, ¶ 38 , citing State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 , 2006-Ohio-6679 , 860 N.E.2d 77 , ¶ 51-52 and 58.

2023(Additional citation omitted.) {¶ 37} “An abuse of discretion standard applies to decisions granting or denying post-conviction relief, ‘including the decision whether to afford the petitioner a hearing.’” State v. Wright, Miami No. 2022-CA-27, 2023-Ohio-2895, ¶ 22 , quoting State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 , 2006-Ohio-6679 , 860 N.E.2d 77 , ¶ 51-52 and 58.

2023“In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an appellant must demonstrate that trial counsel’s performance fell ‘below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises from counsel’s performance.’” State v. Andrus, 11th Dist. 5 Case No. 2023-T-0035 Ashtabula No. 2019-A-0082, 2020-Ohio-6810, ¶ 60 , quoting State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶15} “To be genuinely relevant, the evidence dehors the record must materially advance the petitioner’s claim and ‘meet some threshold stan

2023An abuse of discretion “ ‘implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

2023An abuse of discretion “ ‘implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).