province defense in Ohio

2025Stated differently, "[d]ecisions about 'the viability of certain defenses' are 'within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation with his client.'" State v. Murphy, 2001-Ohio-112, ¶ 55 , quoting Lewis v. Alexander, 11 F.3d 1349, 1354 (6th Cir. 1993). {¶ 34} Cansler does not assert on appeal that his trial counsel failed to object to admission of the gun over Cansler's wishes—an argument that would have been hard to make because Cansler voluntarily refused to communicate anything to his trial counsel.

2014It is also my opinion, from available information, that Ms. Ryther-Collins was never diagnosed with Mental Retardation. {¶18} The competency evaluation report reviewed Ryther-Collins medical reports from the incident in 2009 in which she suffered a “bilateral frontal subarachnoid hemorrhage.” The report does not indicate that this injury caused “a severe mental disease or defect.” Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-115 7 {¶19} A decision regarding which defense to pursue at trial is a matter of trial strategy "within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation with his cli

2020This court can only find that counsel’s performance regarding matters of trial strategy is deficient if counsel’s strategy was so “outside the realm of legitimate trial strategy so as ‘to make ordinary counsel scoff.” State v. Woullard, 158 Ohio App.3d 31 , 813 N.E.2d 964 , 2004– Ohio–3395, ¶ 39(2nd Dist.), quoting State v. Yarber, 102 Ohio App.3d 185, 188 , 656 N.E.2d 1322 (12th Dist. 1995).

2020This court can only find that counsel’s performance regarding matters of trial strategy is deficient if counsel’s strategy was so “outside the realm of legitimate trial strategy so as ‘to make ordinary counsel scoff.” State v. Woullard, 158 Ohio App.3d 31 , 813 N.E.2d 964 , 2004– Ohio–3395, ¶ 39(2nd Dist.), quoting State v. Yarber, 102 Ohio App.3d 185, 188 , 656 N.E.2d 1322 (12th Dist. 1995).

2020This court can only find that counsel’s performance regarding matters of trial strategy is deficient if counsel’s strategy was so “outside the realm of legitimate trial strategy so as ‘to make ordinary counsel scoff.” State v. Woullard, 158 Ohio App.3d 31 , 813 N.E.2d 964 , 2004– Ohio–3395, ¶ 39(2nd Dist.), quoting State v. Yarber, 102 Ohio App.3d 185, 188 , 656 N.E.2d 1322 (12th Dist. 1995).

2018This court can only find that counsel’s performance regarding matters of trial strategy is deficient if counsel’s strategy was so “outside the realm of legitimate trial strategy so as ‘to make ordinary counsel scoff.” State v. Woullard, 158 Ohio App.3d 31 , 813 N.E .2d 964, 2004– Ohio–3395, ¶ 39(2nd Dist.), quoting State v. Yarber, 102 Ohio App.3d 185, 188 , 656 Delaware County, Case No. 18CAA040035 35 N.E.2d 1322 (12th Dist.1995).

2024Further, while “[d]isagreements between attorney and client over trial strategy do not warrant substitution of counsel,” State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2006-Ohio-791 , 842 N.E.2d 996 , ¶ 150, “[d]ecisions about ‘the viability of certain defenses’ are ‘within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation with his client.’” (Emphasis added.) Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d at 524 , 747 N.E.2d 765 , quoting Lewis v. Alexander, 11 F.3d 1349, 1354 (6th Cir.1993). 13 Case No. 2023-T-0062 {¶52} Mr. Requel’s motion alleged that defense counsel failed to meet with him to discuss the

2019The Ohio Supreme Court has held that a defendant does not have a constitutional right to determine strategy, State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2006- Ohio-791, ¶ 150, and "[d]ecisions about 'the viability of certain defenses' are 'within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation with his client.'" State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 524 (2001), quoting Lewis v. Alexander, 11 F.3d 1349, 1354 (6th Cir.1993).

2016"Determination of purely factual questions is primarily within the province of the hearing officer and the commission." Id. at 17 . * * *.

2016"The duty or authority of the courts is to determine whether the decision of the board is supported by the evidence in the record." Id. at 18 .

2008See Bell , supra, at 702, 122 S.Ct. 1843 ; Kimmelman v. Morrison , 47 7 U.S. 365 , 382, 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986); Strickland , supra, at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648 , 656 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984)." Yarborough v. Gentry (2003), 540 U.S. 1 , 8 , 124 S.Ct. 1 , 6 . {¶ 116} A decision regarding which defense to pursue at trial is a matter of trial strategy "within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation *Page 36 with his client." State v. Murphy , 91 Ohio St. 3d 516 , 524 , 2001-Ohio-0112 .

2008See Bell , supra, at 702, 122 S.Ct. 1843 ; Kimmelman v. Morrison , 47 7 U.S. 365 , 382, 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986); Strickland , supra, at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648 , 656 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984)." Yarborough v. Gentry (2003), 540 U.S. 1 , 8 , 124 S.Ct. 1 , 6 . {¶ 116} A decision regarding which defense to pursue at trial is a matter of trial strategy "within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation *Page 36 with his client." State v. Murphy , 91 Ohio St. 3d 516 , 524 , 2001-Ohio-0112 .

2008See Bell , supra, at 702, 122 S.Ct. 1843 ; Kimmelman v. Morrison , 47 7 U.S. 365 , 382, 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986); Strickland , supra, at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648 , 656 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984)." Yarborough v. Gentry (2003), 540 U.S. 1 , 8 , 124 S.Ct. 1 , 6 . {¶ 116} A decision regarding which defense to pursue at trial is a matter of trial strategy "within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation *Page 36 with his client." State v. Murphy , 91 Ohio St. 3d 516 , 524 , 2001-Ohio-0112 .

2008See Bell , supra, at 702, 122 S.Ct. 1843 ; Kimmelman v. Morrison , 47 7 U.S. 365 , 382, 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986); Strickland , supra, at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648 , 656 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984)." Yarborough v. Gentry (2003), 540 U.S. 1 , 8 , 124 S.Ct. 1 , 6 . {¶ 116} A decision regarding which defense to pursue at trial is a matter of trial strategy "within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation *Page 36 with his client." State v. Murphy , 91 Ohio St. 3d 516 , 524 , 2001-Ohio-0112 .

2008See Bell, supra , at 702, 122 S.Ct. 1843 ; Kimmelman v. Morrison , 47 7 U.S. 365 , 382, 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986); Strickland, supra , at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648 , 656 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984)." Yarborough v. Gentry (2003), 540 U.S. 1 , 8 , 124 S.Ct. 1 , 6 . {¶ 139} A decision regarding which defense to pursue at trial is a matter of trial strategy "within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation with his client." State v. Murphy , 91 Ohio St. 3d 516 , 524 , 2001-Ohio-0112 .

2008See Bell , supra, at 702, 122 S.Ct. 1843 ; Kimmelman v. Morrison , 47 7 U.S. 365 , 382, 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986); Strickland , supra, at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648 , 656 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984)." Yarborough v. Gentry (2003), 540 U.S. 1 , 8 , 124 S.Ct. 1 , 6 . {¶ 116} A decision regarding which defense to pursue at trial is a matter of trial strategy "within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation *Page 36 with his client." State v. Murphy , 91 Ohio St. 3d 516 , 524 , 2001-Ohio-0112 .

2008See Bell , supra, at 702, 122 S.Ct. 1843 ; Kimmelman v. Morrison , 47 7 U.S. 365 , 382, 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986); Strickland , supra, at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648 , 656 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984)." Yarborough v. Gentry (2003), 540 U.S. 1 , 8 , 124 S.Ct. 1 , 6 . {¶ 116} A decision regarding which defense to pursue at trial is a matter of trial strategy "within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation *Page 36 with his client." State v. Murphy , 91 Ohio St. 3d 516 , 524 , 2001-Ohio-0112 .

2008See Bell , supra, at 702, 122 S.Ct. 1843 ; Kimmelman v. Morrison , 47 7 U.S. 365 , 382, 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986); Strickland , supra, at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648 , 656 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984)." Yarborough v. Gentry (2003), 540 U.S. 1 , 8 , 124 S.Ct. 1 , 6 . {¶ 116} A decision regarding which defense to pursue at trial is a matter of trial strategy "within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation *Page 36 with his client." State v. Murphy , 91 Ohio St. 3d 516 , 524 , 2001-Ohio-0112 .

1990"Issues of credibility should be determined by the trier of the facts and are not properly within the province of a hearing on a motion for summary judgment." Duke v. Sanymetal Products Co. (1972), 31 Ohio App. 2d, 78 , syllabus.

1990"Issues of credibility should be determined by the trier of the facts and are not properly within the province of a hearing on a motion for summary judgment." Duke v. Sanymetal Products Co. (1972), 31 Ohio App. 2d, 78 , syllabus.

2018Cuyahoga No. 90145, 2008-Ohio-4870, ¶ 10 , quoting State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 524 , 747 N.E.2d 765 (2001).

2017No. 03 MA 231, 2005-Ohio-4502, ¶ 13 , citing State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 524 , 747 N.E.2d 765 (2001).

2016Stark No. 2015CA00098, 2016-Ohio-354, ¶ 75 , citing State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2006-Ohio-791 , 842 N.E.2d 996 , ¶ 150 (decisions regarding viable defenses are “‘within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation with his client’”) (citations omitted); State v. Clayton, 62 Ohio St.2d 45, 49 , 402 N.E.2d 1189 (1980).

2016Stark No. 2015CA00098, 2016-Ohio-354, ¶ 75 , citing State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2006-Ohio-791 , 842 N.E.2d 996 , ¶ 150 (decisions regarding viable defenses are “‘within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation with his client’”) (citations omitted); State v. Clayton, 62 Ohio St.2d 45, 49 , 402 N.E.2d 1189 (1980).

2016Stark No. 2015CA00098, 2016-Ohio-354, ¶ 75 , citing State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2006-Ohio-791 , 842 N.E.2d 996 , ¶ 150 (decisions regarding viable defenses are “‘within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation with his client’”) (citations omitted); State v. Clayton, 62 Ohio St.2d 45, 49 , 402 N.E.2d 1189 (1980).

2016State v. White, 142 Ohio St.3d 277 , 2015-Ohio-492 , 29 N.E.3d 939, ¶ 32 ; R.C. 2935.03(A)(1) (peace officers “shall arrest and detain, until a warrant can be obtained, a person found violating * * * a law of this state”); R.C. 2921.44(A)(2) and (F) (a law-enforcement officer’s negligent failure to prevent or stop the commission of an offense or to apprehend an offender is a second-degree misdemeanor).

2016State v. White, 142 Ohio St.3d 277 , 2015-Ohio-492 , 29 N.E.3d 939, ¶ 32 ; R.C. 2935.03(A)(1) (peace officers “shall arrest and detain, until a warrant can be obtained, a person found violating * * * a law of this state”); R.C. 2921.44(A)(2) and (F) (a law-enforcement officer’s negligent failure to prevent or stop the commission of an offense or to apprehend an offender is a second-degree misdemeanor).

2014Van Brocklin explained that negative information that “Herring had been involved in a life of crime would simply [have been] more ammunition for them to find a death verdict.” And Zena believed that putting on negative mitigation evidence would have served only to “bury him further.” Thus, as the Supreme Court noted in Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. at 1407 , 179 L.Ed.2d 557 , “it certainly can be reasonable for attorneys to conclude that creating sympathy for the defendant’s family is a better idea because the defendant himself is simply unsympathetic.” (Emphasis sic.) {¶ 149} Trial

2014Van Brocklin explained that negative information that “Herring had been involved in a life of crime would simply [have been] more ammunition for them to find a death verdict.” And Zena believed that putting on negative mitigation evidence would have served only to “bury him further.” Thus, as the Supreme Court noted in Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. at 1407 , 179 L.Ed.2d 557 , “it certainly can be reasonable for attorneys to conclude that creating sympathy for the defendant’s family is a better idea because the defendant himself is simply unsympathetic.” (Emphasis sic.) {¶ 149} Trial

2008Accordingly, we find that this issue raises "no genuine issue as to whether [he] was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal * * *" State v. Smith 95 Ohio St. 3d 127 , 2002-Ohio-1753 . *Page 5 {¶ 19} Appellant next argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because he argued in part that the bullet that had struck the victim had ricocheted and counsel failed to investigate evidence of a ricocheting bullet before presenting that defense at trial. {¶ 20} A decision regarding which defense to pursue at trial is a matter of trial strategy "within the exclusive province of defe

2008See State v. Gondor , 112 Ohio St.3d 377 , 2006-Ohio-6679 , 860 N.E.2d 77 , at ¶ 62; State v. Hamblin (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 153 , 156 , 524 N.E.2d 476 . {¶ 21} A decision regarding which defense to pursue at trial is a matter of trial strategy "`within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation with his client.'" State v. Murphy , 91 Ohio St.3d 516 , 524 , 2001-Ohio-0112 , 747 N.E.2d 765 , quoting Lewis v. Alexander (C.A.6, 1993), 11 F.3d 1349 , 1354 . {¶ 22} To establish prejudice, a defendant must demonstrate that a reasonable probability exists that, but for counse

2008See State v. Gondor , 112 Ohio St.3d 377 , 2006-Ohio-6679 , 860 N.E.2d 77 , at ¶ 62; State v. Hamblin (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 153 , 156 , 524 N.E.2d 476 . {¶ 21} A decision regarding which defense to pursue at trial is a matter of trial strategy "`within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation with his client.'" State v. Murphy , 91 Ohio St.3d 516 , 524 , 2001-Ohio-0112 , 747 N.E.2d 765 , quoting Lewis v. Alexander (C.A.6, 1993), 11 F.3d 1349 , 1354 . {¶ 22} To establish prejudice, a defendant must demonstrate that a reasonable probability exists that, but for counse

2008See State v. White (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 16 , 23 , 693 N.E.2d 772 ; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 , at paragraph three of the syllabus.

2008See State v. White (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 16 , 23 , 693 N.E.2d 772 ; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 , at paragraph three of the syllabus.

2008Accordingly, we find that this issue raises "no genuine issue as to whether [he] was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal * * *" State v. Smith 95 Ohio St. 3d 127 , 2002-Ohio-1753 . *Page 5 {¶ 19} Appellant next argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because he argued in part that the bullet that had struck the victim had ricocheted and counsel failed to investigate evidence of a ricocheting bullet before presenting that defense at trial. {¶ 20} A decision regarding which defense to pursue at trial is a matter of trial strategy "within the exclusive province of defe

2008Purely factual determinations are primarily within the province of the hearing officer and commission." Cottrell , supra, at ¶ 6 , citing Irvine v. Unemp.

2006Ketterer also argues that the “trial court erred when it denied Ketterer’s request to remove appointed lead defense counsel and replace him with new counsel.” However, we reject Ketterer’s complaint for the following reasons. {¶ 149} In State v. Coleman (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 286 , 525 N.E.2d 792 , paragraph four of the syllabus, we held: “To discharge a court-appointed attorney, the defendant must show a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship of such magnitude as to jeopardize the defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel.” Accord State v. Henness, 79 Ohio St.3d at 65, 679 N.

2006Ketterer also argues that the “trial court erred when it denied Ketterer’s request to remove appointed lead defense counsel and replace him with new counsel.” However, we reject Ketterer’s complaint for the following reasons. {¶ 149} In State v. Coleman (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 286 , 525 N.E.2d 792 , paragraph four of the syllabus, we held: “To discharge a court-appointed attorney, the defendant must show a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship of such magnitude as to jeopardize the defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel.” Accord State v. Henness, 79 Ohio St.3d at 65, 679 N.