Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

68 Ohio St. 2d 58

State v. Pankey

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 18, 1981

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1981-11-18

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“the petitioner bears the initial burden to submit evidentiary documents containing sufficient operative facts to demonstrate the lack of competent counsel and that the defense was prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness.”

quoted by 8 later decisions, including State v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2005), State v. Battle, 06ap-863 (4-19-2007)

Relies on State v. Jackson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-11-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably State v. Kapper (1983), 73 Ohio App. 3d 672 - State v. Sowell (1991)

115 state decisions

48019811990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing before ruling on appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief. We hold that no hearing was required under the facts in this case.

¶2Appellant claims that his counsel’s unfamiliarity with his cause prior to his appearance before the court caused an unintelligent waiver of his rights.

¶3This court recently set forth the test for obtaining a hearing when a petition for post-conviction relief is filed. The *59syllabus, in State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 107, is as follows:

“In a petition for post-conviction relief, which asserts ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner bears the initial burden to submit evidentiary documents containing sufficient operative facts to demonstrate the lack of competent counsel and that the defense was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness.”

¶4Appellant cites various occurrences in order to illustrate his counsel’s ineffectiveness. These 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.

¶5Furthermore, the record contradicts many of appellant’s assertions. For example, appellant argues that his voluntary, written waiver of his rights was made unintelligently. Yet, the record shows that the court apprised appellant of his constitutional rights. The trial court meticulously and thoroughly examined appellant to insure a voluntary and intelligent waiver. The record also demonstrates that counsel had previously explained the circumstances to appellant.

¶6Based upon our discussion in Jackson, supra,and upon the facts herein, we find that the trial court properly dismissed appellant’s petition to vacate.

¶7The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

¶8Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C. J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and Krupansky, JJ., concur.
/68/ohiost2d/58 · .json · Public domain