Title: State v. Griffie

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Griffie, Appellant. 
1 
[Cite as State v. Griffie (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 
2 
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from 
3 
judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective 
4 
assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when no 
5 
genuine issue of whether applicant was deprived of effective 
6 
assistance of counsel on appeal is raised. 
7 
 
(No. 95-897--Submitted September 12, 1995--Decided January 17, 
8 
1996.) 
9 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 
10 
14364. 
11 
 
Following a jury trial, appellant, James Griffie was convicted of 
12 
felonious assault and sentenced accordingly.  The court of appeals affirmed 
13 
the conviction except for a fine.  State v. Griffie, Jr. (Dec. 21, 1994), 
14 
Montgomery App. No. 14364, unreported. 
15 
 
Appellant then filed an application to reopen his direct appeal 
16 
pursuant to App.R. 26(B), stating that his appellate counsel was ineffective 
17 
for having failed to argue that his trial counsel was ineffective for not 
18 
requesting an instruction on the lesser included offense of assault.  The 
19 
 
2
court of appeals denied this application.  The court stated that since requests 
1 
for jury instructions are notoriously part of trial strategy, the court could not 
2 
determine solely from the record whether appellant’s trial counsel was 
3 
ineffective.  Appellant appeals the denial to this court. 
4 
______________ 
5 
 
Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
6 
Carley J. Ingram, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
7 
 
James Griffie, Jr., pro se. 
8 
______________ 
9 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the decision of th e court of appeals. 
10 
 
In his application for reopening, appellant argued that his appellate 
11 
counsel was ineffective for not arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective 
12 
for not requesting an instruction on the lesser included offense of assault.  
13 
However, appellant offers no support for his argument besides the record.  
14 
App.R. 26(B)(2)(e) states that an application for reopening shall contain 
15 
“[a]ny parts of the record available to the applicant and all supplemental 
16 
affidavits upon which the applicant relies.”  The record may reveal that trial 
17 
counsel did not request a certain jury instruction, but, without more, the 
18 
 
3
court of appeals would have to guess as to why trial counsel did not make 
1 
the request.  Failure to request instructions on lesser-included offenses is a 
2 
matter of trial strategy and does not establish ineffective assistance of 
3 
counsel.  State v. Clayton (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 45, 16 O.O.3d 35, 402 
4 
N.E.2d 1189, certiorari denied (1980), 449 U.S. 879, 101 S.Ct. 227, 66 
5 
L.Ed.2d 102. 
6 
 
Under App.R. 26(B)(5), an application for reopening shall be granted 
7 
if there is a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the 
8 
effective assistance of counsel on appeal.  Since appellant offered no proof 
9 
of appellate counsel’s ineffective assistance besides the record, no genuine 
10 
issue was raised.  Therefore, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals. 
11 
Judgment affirmed. 
12 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
13 
and COOK, JJ., concur. 
14 
 
15