Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2026 3 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2024Nevertheless, because the lead opinion has addressed the issue, I will briefly discuss why its conclusion regarding the ineffective-counsel claim is incorrect. {¶ 43} “Counsel’s performance will not be deemed ineffective unless and until counsel’s performance is proved to have fallen below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises from counsel’s performance.” State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus, citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 2024Nevertheless, because the lead opinion has addressed the issue, I will briefly discuss why its conclusion regarding the ineffective-counsel claim is incorrect. {¶ 43} “Counsel’s performance will not be deemed ineffective unless and until counsel’s performance is proved to have fallen below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises from counsel’s performance.” State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus, citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Bradleygreen2 sentences2024Nevertheless, because the lead opinion has addressed the issue, I will briefly discuss why its conclusion regarding the ineffective-counsel claim is incorrect. {¶ 43} “Counsel’s performance will not be deemed ineffective unless and until counsel’s performance is proved to have fallen below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises from counsel’s performance.” State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus, citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 2024Nevertheless, because the lead opinion has addressed the issue, I will briefly discuss why its conclusion regarding the ineffective-counsel claim is incorrect. {¶ 43} “Counsel’s performance will not be deemed ineffective unless and until counsel’s performance is proved to have fallen below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises from counsel’s performance.” State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus, citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Gustergreen2 sentences2024The evidence presented at trial did not constitute an affirmative defense {¶ 31} Wilson asserts a single proposition of law, in which he argues that he was entitled to a self-defense jury instruction. “[A] court’s instructions to the jury should be addressed to the actual issues in the case as posited by the evidence and the pleadings.” State v. Guster, 66 Ohio St.2d 266, 271, 421 N.E.2d 157 (1981). 2024The evidence presented at trial did not constitute an affirmative defense {¶ 31} Wilson asserts a single proposition of law, in which he argues that he was entitled to a self-defense jury instruction. “[A] court’s instructions to the jury should be addressed to the actual issues in the case as posited by the evidence and the pleadings.” State v. Guster, 66 Ohio St.2d 266, 271, 421 N.E.2d 157 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Guenther, Unpublished Decision (2-20-2007)green1 sentence2024Sept. 29, 2000) (findings of fact and conclusions of law fail to address a determinative issue and provide a basis for a resolution of that issue”); State v. Crossley, 2020-Ohio- 6640, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.) (findings of fact and conclusions of law fail to specifically address an ineffective-counsel claim or sufficiently explain discounting the credibility of supporting affidavits); Ketterer at ¶ 38 (findings of fact and conclusions of law “generically label[ed],” then summarily denied, multiple postconviction claims and did not indicate review of supporting evidence); State v. Guenther, 2007-Ohio-68 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ketterergreen1 sentence2024Sept. 29, 2000) (findings of fact and conclusions of law fail to address a determinative issue and provide a basis for a resolution of that issue”); State v. Crossley, 2020-Ohio- 6640, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.) (findings of fact and conclusions of law fail to specifically address an ineffective-counsel claim or sufficiently explain discounting the credibility of supporting affidavits); Ketterer at ¶ 38 (findings of fact and conclusions of law “generically label[ed],” then summarily denied, multiple postconviction claims and did not indicate review of supporting evidence); State v. Guenther, 2007-Ohio-68 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gibson
green
2 sentences2004State v. Gibson (1980), 69 Ohio App.2d 91 , 430 N.E.2d 954 ; State v. Buckingham, Montgomery App. No. 19205, 2003-Ohio-44 , at ¶ 21. {¶ 38} Finally, Earnest complains that his attorney failed to cross-examine Officer Mollohan. 2004State v. Gibson (1980), 69 Ohio App.2d 91 , 430 N.E.2d 954 ; State v. Buckingham, Montgomery App. No. 19205, 2003-Ohio-44 , at ¶ 21. {¶ 38} Finally, Earnest complains that his attorney failed to cross-examine Officer Mollohan. | 2 | 2003–2004 |
State v. Spates
green
2 sentences2017C-100298 and C-100319, 2011-Ohio-1358 , 2011 WL 1085978 , ¶ 7-10, citing State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269 , 272, 595 N.E.2d 351 (1992). {¶ 24} Ineffective-counsel claim. 2017C-100298 and C-100319, 2011-Ohio-1358 , 2011 WL 1085978 , ¶ 7-10, citing State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269 , 272, 595 N.E.2d 351 (1992). {¶ 24} Ineffective-counsel claim. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Nuhfer, L-07-1125 (3-20-2009)
neutral
1 sentence2013Lucas No. L-07-1125, 2009-Ohio-1474, ¶ 22 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Carter
green
1 sentence2005State v. Copeland (January 18, 2002), Montgomery App. No. 18711; State v. Carter (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 770 , 776 . {¶ 35} The affidavit Defendant submitted in support of this ineffective counsel claim merely states that he would have testified at trial had he been asked to do so by his attorneys. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Cole
green
1 sentence1998State v. Cole (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 112 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.
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.