Case Title: State v. Burke

Citation: 2002-Ohio-5310

Docket Number: 20012185

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-10-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State v. Burke, 97 Ohio St.3d 55, 2002-Ohio-5310.] 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BURKE, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Burke, 97 Ohio St.3d 55, 2002-Ohio-5310.] 
Appellate procedure — Application to reopen appeal from judgment of 
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel 
— Court of appeals’ denial of application affirmed, when — Application 
denied when applicant fails to demonstrate the existence of a genuine 
issue as to appellate counsel’s effectiveness. 
(No. 2001-2185 — Submitted July 24, 2002 — Decided October 16, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 90AP-1344, 2001-
Ohio-4067. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Appellant, Mark Burke, challenges the denial of his application to 
reopen his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B). 
{¶2} 
Burke was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death.  
The Court of Appeals for Franklin County affirmed his conviction and sentence.  
State v. Burke (Dec. 28, 1993), Franklin App. No. 90AP-1344, 1993 WL 541653.  
We affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment.  State v. Burke (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 
399, 653 N.E.2d 242.  The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari.  
Burke v. Ohio (1996), 517 U.S. 1112, 116 S.Ct. 1336, 134 L.Ed.2d 486. 
{¶3} 
On May 22, 2001, Burke’s counsel filed an App.R. 26(B) 
application in the court of appeals.  App.R. 26(B)(5) requires that the applicant 
show “a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective 
assistance of counsel on appeal.”  Burke claimed that he had been denied effective 
assistance by reason of his appellate counsel’s failure to raise 20 issues on direct 
appeal.  The court of appeals examined each of Burke’s contentions and found 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
that they failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue as to appellate 
counsel’s effectiveness.  The court therefore denied Burke’s application.  State v. 
Burke (Nov. 15, 2001), Franklin App. No. 90AP-1344, 2001 WL 1426433. 
{¶4} 
In his first proposition of law, Burke contends that he did raise a 
genuine issue and that his application should therefore have been granted. 
{¶5} 
Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 
L.Ed.2d 674, establishes the standard for judging ineffective-assistance claims.  
The two-part Strickland test, we have held, “is the appropriate standard to assess a 
defense request for reopening under App.R. 26(B)(5).”  State v. Spivey (1998), 84 
Ohio St.3d 24, 25, 701 N.E.2d 696. 
{¶6} 
Under Strickland, a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of 
counsel “must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard 
of reasonableness.”  Id. at 687-688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.  He must 
also show that the ineffective representation prejudiced his case: “The 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. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.  See, also, State v. Bradley 
(1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373, paragraphs two and three of the 
syllabus. 
{¶7} 
Under Strickland, a court must apply “a heavy measure of 
deference to counsel’s judgments,” 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 
674, and “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the 
wide range of reasonable professional assistance.”  Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 
L.Ed.2d 674.  Moreover, since the basis of Burke’s claim is counsel’s failure to 
raise certain issues on appeal, we note 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. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
{¶8} 
The court of appeals, applying Strickland, concluded that Burke’s 
application failed to raise any genuine issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.  
We agree.  We therefore overrule Burke’s first proposition of law. 
{¶9} 
In his second proposition of law, Burke contends that the court of 
appeals erroneously denied his request for an evidentiary hearing on the 
application, see App.R. 26(B)(8), and his related requests for discovery, funds to 
retain an expert witness regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, and 
appointment of counsel.  He contends that the court should have held a hearing to 
determine whether, under all the circumstances, appellate counsel’s conduct was 
sound strategy or deficient performance. 
{¶10} This proposition lacks merit.  The court of appeals carefully 
reviewed each of the 20 issues Burke wishes to raise on a reopened appeal.  Four 
of them simply lacked support in the trial record.  Clearly, declining to raise 
claims without record support cannot constitute ineffective assistance of appellate 
counsel.  See State v. Hill (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 571, 573, 740 N.E.2d 282.  
Hence, there was no need to inquire into the circumstances surrounding counsel’s 
failure to raise these claims. 
{¶11} Nor was Burke entitled to a hearing to determine the facts 
underlying the claims themselves, for “the effectiveness of appellate counsel 
[cannot] be judged by adding new matter to the record and then arguing that 
counsel should have raised these new issues revealed by this newly added 
material.”  State v. Moore (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 649, 650, 758 N.E.2d 1130. 
{¶12} The court of appeals determined that appellate counsel’s failure to 
raise ten other claims was not deficient performance because four were barred by 
res judicata, while six were not supported by existing law.  Finally, the court 
determined that counsel’s failure to raise six other claims was not prejudicial 
under Strickland.  Again, there was no need to inquire into the circumstances 
surrounding appellate counsel’s decision not to raise these claims. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶13} Finally, as to the appointment of counsel, Burke was, in fact, 
represented by counsel on his App.R. 26(B) application.  See Moore, 93 Ohio 
St.3d at 650, 758 N.E.2d 1130. 
{¶14} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Law Offices of John S. Marshall and Lori Leon; and Carol A. Wright, for 
appellant. 
__________________