Title: State v. Frazier

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State v. Frazier, 96 Ohio St.3d 189, 2002-Ohio-4011.] 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. FRAZIER, N.K.A. HALIYM, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Frazier, 96 Ohio St.3d 189, 2002-Ohio-4011.] 
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 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). 
(No. 2001-1723 — Submitted May 7, 2002 — Decided August 21, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 54771. 
__________________ 
PER CURIAM. 
{¶1} 
Appellant, Abdul Haliym, formerly known as Wayne Frazier, was 
convicted of the aggravated murders of Marcellus Williams and Joann Richards 
and sentenced to death.  Except for the gun specifications, the court of appeals 
affirmed Haliym’s convictions and death sentence.  State v. Frazier (Jan. 11, 
1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 54771, 1990 WL 1494.  We also affirmed his 
convictions and death sentence.  State v. Frazier (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 247, 574 
N.E.2d 483. 
{¶2} 
Subsequently, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s 
decision to deny Haliym’s petition for postconviction relief.  State v. Haliym 
(Mar. 12, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 72411, 1998 WL 108139. We refused to 
accept Haliym’s appeal of that decision.  State v. Haliym (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 
1441, 695 N.E.2d 264. 
{¶3} 
On August 22, 2000, Haliym filed an application with the court of 
appeals to reopen his direct appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, alleging ineffective 
assistance of his appellate counsel before the court of appeals in his first appeal. 
{¶4} 
Under App.R. 26(B)(5), “[a]n application for reopening shall be 
granted if there is a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the 
effective assistance of counsel on appeal.”  The court of appeals denied Haliym’s 
application to reopen his appeal because Haliym had not shown good cause for 
filing the application more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate 
judgment as required by App.R. 26(B)(1). Furthermore, the court of appeals 
found that res judicata barred this application and that Haliym failed to 
demonstrate that a genuine issue existed.  The cause is now before this court upon 
an appeal as of right. 
{¶5} 
Haliym raises three issues on this appeal.  First, Haliym claims that 
he had good cause for the late filing of his application for reconsideration under 
App.R. 26(B).  However, our disposition of Haliym’s second and third 
propositions, which argue the merits of his case, negates any need to decide that 
issue. 
{¶6} 
Haliym’s second and third propositions relate to the merits of 
issues that he claims his former appellate lawyers should have raised.  In 
proposition II, Haliym argues that his appellate counsel were ineffective by failing 
to challenge a jurisdictional defect resulting from a violation of the jury waiver 
statute, R.C. 2945.05.  In proposition III, Haliym asserts that his appellate counsel 
were ineffective for failing to raise numerous other assignments of error on direct 
appeal before the court of appeals.  The two-pronged analysis found in Strickland 
v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, is the 
appropriate standard to assess whether Haliym 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. Sheppard (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 329, 330, 744 N.E.2d 770; 
January Term, 2002 
3 
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. 
{¶7} 
“To show ineffective assistance, [defendant] 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.”  
Sheppard, 91 Ohio St.3d at 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, Haliym “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.”  Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d at 25, 701 N.E.2d 696. 
{¶8} 
We have reviewed Haliym’s assertions of deficient performance by 
appellate counsel and find that Haliym has failed 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).  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 Diane 
Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
Robert M. Ingersoll, Cuyahoga County Assistant Public Defender; and 
John P. Parker, for appellant. 
__________________