requirements for an evidentiary hearing (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

requirements for an evidentiary hearing in Ohio

8 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2020 0 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Pankeygreen
ohio · 1981 · cited in 6 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1998–2009
2 sentences

2009See 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.

2007See, 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.

46

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Strickland v. Washington green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

2009Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 2064 ; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , paragraph two of the syllabus, cert. denied (1990), 497 U.S. 1011 , 110 S.Ct. 3258 .

2009Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 2064 ; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , paragraph two of the syllabus, cert. denied (1990), 497 U.S. 1011 , 110 S.Ct. 3258 .

32005–2009
State v. Calhoun green
ohio · 1999
2 sentences

2020The Ohio General Assembly has done so, by limiting the time for asserting a postconviction claim, by restricting the jurisdiction of a court to entertain late or successive claims, and setting forth the requirements for an evidentiary hearing. “[A] petitioner receives no more rights than those granted by the statute.” Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d at 281 , 714 N.E.2d 905 .

2020The Ohio General Assembly has done so, by limiting the time for asserting a postconviction claim, by restricting the jurisdiction of a court to entertain late or successive claims, and setting forth the requirements for an evidentiary hearing. “[A] petitioner receives no more rights than those granted by the statute.” Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d at 281 , 714 N.E.2d 905 .

12020–2020
Bradley v. Ohio green
scotus · 1990
1 sentence

2009Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 2064 ; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , paragraph two of the syllabus, cert. denied (1990), 497 U.S. 1011 , 110 S.Ct. 3258 .

12009–2009
State v. Bradley green
ohio · 1989
1 sentence

2009Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 2064 ; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , paragraph two of the syllabus, cert. denied (1990), 497 U.S. 1011 , 110 S.Ct. 3258 .

12009–2009
Lockhart v. Hill green
scotus · 1990
1 sentence

2009Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 2064 ; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , paragraph two of the syllabus, cert. denied (1990), 497 U.S. 1011 , 110 S.Ct. 3258 .

12009–2009
State v. Jackson green
ohio · 1980
1 sentence

1981These 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.

11981–1981

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check