Title: State v. Woodard

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State v. Woodard, 96 Ohio St.3d 344, 2002-Ohio-4767.] 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. WOODARD, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Woodard, 96 Ohio St.3d 344, 2002-Ohio-4767.] 
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 raise a genuine issue as to whether he was 
deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal as required by 
App.R. 26(B)(5). 
(No. 2001-1840 — Submitted July 24, 2002 — Decided September 25, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 61171. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Appellant, Eugene Woodard, was convicted of the aggravated 
murder of Mani Akram and sentenced to death.  He was also convicted and 
sentenced to prison for aggravated robbery and receiving stolen property.  The 
court of appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence.  State v. Woodard (Apr. 
23, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 61171, 1992 WL 84888.  On appeal as of right, we 
also affirmed.  State v. Woodard (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 70, 623 N.E.2d 75, 
certiorari denied, Woodard v. Ohio (1994), 512 U.S. 1246, 114 S.Ct. 2770, 129 
L.Ed.2d 883. 
{¶2} 
Subsequently, the trial court denied Woodard’s petition for 
postconviction relief, and the court of appeals affirmed.  State v. Woodard (Jan. 
22, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 71912, 1998 WL 23844.  We declined to accept 
Woodard’s appeal.  State v. Woodard (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 1522, 692 N.E.2d 
1024.  The United States Supreme Court also rejected Woodard’s complaint that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Ohio’s clemency process violated his constitutional rights.  Ohio Adult Parole 
Auth. v. Woodard (1998), 523 U.S. 272, 118 S.Ct. 1244, 140 L.Ed.2d 387. 
{¶3} 
On November 29, 2000, Woodard filed an application in the 
Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals to reopen his appeal from his conviction 
pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 
N.E.2d 1204, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel before that court.  
However, the court of appeals found that Woodard had failed to show good cause 
for filing his application more than 90 days after that court’s judgment was 
journalized, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).  State v. Woodard (Sept. 18, 
2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 61171, 2001 WL 1134873.  The court of appeals also 
found that Woodard’s application was barred by res judicata and that Woodard 
“failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that ‘there is a genuine issue as to 
whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on 
appeal,’ ” as required by App.R. 26(B)(5).  Hence, that court also denied the 
application for reopening the appeal on the merits.  The cause is now before this 
court upon an appeal as of right. 
{¶4} 
In his second proposition of law, Woodard asserts that his counsel 
have established a genuine issue as to whether he was denied the effective 
assistance of counsel in his initial appeal to the court of appeals.  The two-
pronged analysis found in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 
S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, is the appropriate standard to assess whether 
Woodard has raised a “genuine issue” as to the ineffectiveness of appellate 
counsel in his request to reopen under App.R. 26(B)(5).  State v. Spivey (1998), 84 
Ohio St.3d 24, 25, 701 N.E.2d 696; State v. Reed (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 534, 535, 
660 N.E.2d 456.  “To show ineffective assistance, [appellant] must prove that his 
counsel were deficient for failing to raise the issues he now presents and that there 
was a reasonable probability of success had he presented those claims on appeal.”  
January Term, 2002 
3 
State v. Sheppard (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 329, 330, 744 N.E.2d 770, citing State v. 
Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373, paragraph three of the 
syllabus.  Moreover, to justify reopening his appeal, Woodard “bears the burden 
of establishing that there was a ‘genuine issue’ as to whether he has a ‘colorable 
claim’ of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal.”  State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio 
St.3d at 25, 701 N.E.2d 696. 
{¶5} 
We have reviewed Woodard’s assertions of deficient performance 
by appellate counsel and find that Woodard has failed to raise “a genuine issue as 
to whether [he] was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal” 
before the court of appeals, as required under App.R. 26(B)(5). 
{¶6} 
In his first proposition of law, Woodard argues that he had good 
cause for the late filing of his application to reopen under App.R. 26(B) and relies, 
in part, upon White v. Schotten (C.A.6, 2000), 201 F.3d 743, to support his claim 
of good cause.  However, our disposition of Woodard’s second proposition on the 
merits of the case negates any need to decide this issue.  Accordingly, 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. 
__________________ 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and L. 
Christopher Frey, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
Richard Agopian, for appellant.