Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—Application denied when applicant fails to raise a genuine issue as required by App.R. 26(B)(5).
.]
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT.
[Cite as State v. Williams,
1996-Ohio-27
.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
Application denied when applicant fails to raise a genuine issue as
required by App.R. 26(B)(5).
(No. 95-1695—Submitted August 14, 1995—Decided February 7, 1996.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 16943.
__________________
{¶ 1} Appellant, Leroy Williams, was convicted of aggravated murder. The
court of appeals affirmed the conviction. State v. Williams (Apr. 12, 1995), Summit
App. No. 16943, unreported.
{¶ 2} Subsequently, appellant filed an application to reopen his appeal
pursuant to App.R. 26(B), arguing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The
court of appeals denied the application, holding that appellant failed to raise a
genuine issue as required by App.R. 26(B)(5). This appeal followed.
__________________
Maureen O’Connor, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and William
D. Wellemeyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Leroy Williams, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 3} Appellant first argued to the court of appeals that he received
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because appellate counsel failed to raise
the issue of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. Appellant asserted that trial counsel was
ineffective for allowing the results of ballistics tests to be introduced into evidence
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
without calling the expert who performed the tests. The court of appeals held that
appellant failed to show any prejudice because he had failed to demonstrate that,
but for the alleged error, the outcome of his trial would have been different. We
concur. See State v. Bradley (1989),
, paragraph
three of the syllabus.
{¶ 4} Appellant also argued that “trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
offer the jury an explanation of the low levels of antimony and barium on the
confessed shooter and failing to offer an alternative explanation of how appellant’s
hands could have been contaminated [with these chemicals].” However, the court
of appeals held that the record showed that trial counsel did address that issue, and
that, in any case, appellant failed to show prejudice. We concur.
{¶ 5} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
__________________
2
