postconviction evidentiary hearing in Ohio

2006Hence, without notification, the public defender is in no position, with respect to postconviction proceedings, to exercise those discretionary powers explicitly conferred on the public defender by the General Assembly pursuant to the Public Defender's Act. [Previously identified in the opinion as being contained in R.C. 120.16 (A)(1) and (D).] Accordingly, the public defender must be provided with notice that a postconviction evidentiary hearing has been set. " Id., at 60 Ohio St.3d 153 (emphasis added). {¶ 30} From the emphasized portion of the holding in State v. Crowder, supra, it is clear

2006Hence, without notification, the public defender is in no position, with respect to postconviction proceedings, to exercise those discretionary powers explicitly conferred on the public defender by the General Assembly pursuant to the Public Defender's Act. [Previously identified in the opinion as being contained in R.C. 120.16 (A)(1) and (D).] Accordingly, the public defender must be provided with notice that a postconviction evidentiary hearing has been set. " Id., at 60 Ohio St.3d 153 (emphasis added). {¶ 30} From the emphasized portion of the holding in State v. Crowder, supra, it is clear

2020State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107, 111 , 413 N.E.2d 819 (1980). {¶41} As for the four remaining affidavits attached to Hull’s motion, the trial court finds that none of these four aver that Hull was coerced to plead guilty, and none establishes that had a timely motion to suppress been filed, it would have been granted.

2020State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107, 111 , 413 N.E.2d 819 (1980). {¶41} As for the four remaining affidavits attached to Hull’s motion, the trial court finds that none of these four aver that Hull was coerced to plead guilty, and none establishes that had a timely motion to suppress been filed, it would have been granted.

2008Therefore, appellant may *Page 26 petition for a postconviction evidentiary hearing to develop a record upon which his claims of counsel's failure to investigate may be properly addressed. {¶ 65} Further, as to appellant's contention that counsel was ineffective in failing to cross-examine the state's witnesses, we note initially that "[t]he extent and scope of cross-examination clearly fall within the ambit of trial strategy, and debatable trial tactics do not establish ineffective assistance of counsel." State v. Leonard , 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , at ¶ 146 . "[A]n appellate court

2008Therefore, appellant may *Page 26 petition for a postconviction evidentiary hearing to develop a record upon which his claims of counsel's failure to investigate may be properly addressed. {¶ 65} Further, as to appellant's contention that counsel was ineffective in failing to cross-examine the state's witnesses, we note initially that "[t]he extent and scope of cross-examination clearly fall within the ambit of trial strategy, and debatable trial tactics do not establish ineffective assistance of counsel." State v. Leonard , 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , at ¶ 146 . "[A]n appellate court

2008Therefore, appellant may *Page 26 petition for a postconviction evidentiary hearing to develop a record upon which his claims of counsel's failure to investigate may be properly addressed. {¶ 65} Further, as to appellant's contention that counsel was ineffective in failing to cross-examine the state's witnesses, we note initially that "[t]he extent and scope of cross-examination clearly fall within the ambit of trial strategy, and debatable trial tactics do not establish ineffective assistance of counsel." State v. Leonard , 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , at ¶ 146 . "[A]n appellate court

2007Id.

2002Applying the materiality test as set forth in Kyles v. Whitley (1995), 514 U.S. 419 , suppression of the impeachment evidence in this case may have constituted a Brady violation, and as such, the trial court erred in denying appellant's request for a postconviction evidentiary hearing.