Case Name: The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Henry, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1995-02-22
Citations: 71 Ohio St. 3d 564
Docket Number: No. 94-2175
Parties: The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Henry, Appellant.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 71
Pages: 564–565

Head Matter:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Henry, Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Henry (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 564.]
(No. 94-2175
Submitted January 10, 1995
Decided February 22, 1995.)
Andre Henry, pro se.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Appellant in his application to the court of appeals essentially stated that appellate counsel did not argue his case the way appellant thought he should have, or the way appellant himself would have argued it. This is not the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its entry denying the application for reopening.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.