[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at
91 Ohio St.3d 570.]
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BRADLEY, APPELLANT.
[Cite as State v. Bradley, 2001-Ohio-116.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment of
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
Application denied when applicant fails to raise a genuine issue of
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—Court of appeals’ denial of
application to reopen appeal affirmed.
(No. 00-1728—Submitted January 30, 2001—Decided June 6, 2001.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Scioto County, No. 1583.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Appellant, William J. Bradley, challenges the denial of his application
to reopen his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B).
{¶ 2} Bradley was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death.
The Court of Appeals for Scioto County affirmed his conviction and sentence.
State v. Bradley (Sept. 22, 1987), Scioto App. No. 1583, unreported, 1987 WL
17303. We affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment. State v. Bradley (1989),
42
Ohio St.3d 136,
538 N.E.2d 373. The Supreme Court of the United States denied
certiorari. Bradley v. Ohio (1990),
497 U.S. 1011,
110 S.Ct. 3258,
111 L.Ed.2d
768.
{¶ 3} On February 1, 2000, Bradley filed an App.R. 26(B) application in
the court of appeals. App.R. 26(B)(1) requires that an application to reopen be filed
within ninety days from journalization of the judgment, absent good cause for filing
later. The court of appeals found that Bradley had failed to show good cause for
not filing his application until February 1, 2000.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 4} App.R. 26(B)(5) also requires that the applicant show “a genuine
issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel
on appeal.” The court of appeals found that Bradley’s application failed to clear
this hurdle as well, remarking that “even if the application was considered on its
merits we would still find no ‘genuine issues’ as to whether [Bradley] was deprived
of effective assistance of appellate counsel.” Accordingly, the court of appeals
denied the application to reopen Bradley’s direct appeal. From that denial, Bradley
appeals.
{¶ 5} Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668,
104 S.Ct. 2052,
80
L.Ed.2d 674, sets forth the standard for judging ineffective-assistance claims:
“When a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness of counsel’s
assistance, the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness.”
Id. at 687-688,
104 S.Ct. at 2064,
80
L.Ed.2d at 693. Furthermore, “[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome.”
Id. at 694,
104 S.Ct. at 2068,
80 L.Ed.2d
at 698. See, also, State v. Bradley,
42 Ohio St.3d 136,
538 N.E.2d 373, paragraphs
two and three of the syllabus.
{¶ 6} Strickland charges us to “[apply] a heavy measure of deference to
counsel’s judgments,” 466 U.S. at 691,
104 S.Ct. at 2066,
80 L.Ed.2d at 695, and
to “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range
of reasonable professional assistance.”
Id. at 689,
104 S.Ct. at 2065,
80 L.Ed.2d at
694. Moreover, we must bear in mind that appellate counsel need not raise every
possible issue in order to render constitutionally effective assistance. See Jones v.
Barnes (1983),
463 U.S. 745,
103 S.Ct. 3308,
77 L.Ed.2d 987.
{¶ 7} The two-part Strickland test “is the appropriate standard to assess a
defense request for reopening under App.R. 26(B)(5).” State v. Spivey (1998), 84
2
January Term, 2001
Ohio St.3d 24, 25,
701 N.E.2d 696, 697. Applying the Strickland test, we agree
with the court of appeals’ conclusion that Bradley has failed to raise a genuine issue
of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and Angela Miller, Assistant State
Public Defender, for appellant.
__________________
3
