Title: State v. Bradley

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State v. Bradley, 91 Ohio St.3d 570, 2001-Ohio-116.] 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BRADLEY, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Bradley (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 570.] 
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 of 
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel — Court of appeals’ denial of 
application to reopen appeal affirmed. 
(No. 00-1728 — Submitted January 30, 2001 — Decided June 6, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Scioto County, No. 1583. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellant, William J. Bradley, challenges the denial of his 
application to reopen his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B). 
 
Bradley was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death.  The 
Court of Appeals for Scioto County affirmed his conviction and sentence.  State v. 
Bradley (Sept. 22, 1987), Scioto App. No. 1583, unreported, 1987 WL 17303.  
We affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment.  State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio 
St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373.  The Supreme Court of the United States denied 
certiorari.  Bradley v. Ohio (1990), 497 U.S. 1011, 110 S.Ct. 3258, 111 L.Ed.2d 
768. 
 
On February 1, 2000, Bradley filed an App.R. 26(B) application in the 
court of appeals.  App.R. 26(B)(1) requires that an application to reopen be filed 
within ninety days from journalization of the judgment, absent good cause for 
filing later.  The court of appeals found that Bradley had failed to show good 
cause for not filing his application until February 1, 2000. 
 
App.R. 26(B)(5) also requires that the applicant show “a genuine issue as 
to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
appeal.”  The court of appeals found that Bradley’s application failed to clear this 
hurdle as well, remarking that “even if the application was considered on its 
merits we would still find no ‘genuine issues’ as to whether [Bradley] was 
deprived of effective assistance of appellate counsel.”  Accordingly, the court of 
appeals denied the application to reopen Bradley’s direct appeal.  From that 
denial, Bradley appeals. 
 
Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 
L.Ed.2d 674, sets forth the standard for judging ineffective-assistance claims: 
“When a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness of counsel’s 
assistance, the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an 
objective standard of reasonableness.”  Id. at 687-688, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 80 
L.Ed.2d at 693.  Furthermore, “[t]he 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. at 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d at 698.  See, also, State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 
538 N.E.2d 373, paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. 
 
Strickland charges us to “[apply] a heavy measure of deference to 
counsel’s judgments,” 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066, 80 L.Ed.2d at 695, and 
to “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide 
range of reasonable professional assistance.”  Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065, 80 
L.Ed.2d at 694.  Moreover, we must bear in mind 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. 
 
The two-part Strickland test “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, 697.  Applying the Strickland test, we agree 
with the court of appeals’ conclusion that Bradley has failed to raise a genuine 
January Term, 2001 
3 
issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 
the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and Angela Miller, Assistant 
State Public Defender, for appellant. 
__________________