State v. Clark

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth District Court of Appeals, holding that an appellant’s brief in a reopened appeal must expressly address the alleged deficiency of appellate counsel and the resulting prejudice under App.R. 26(B)(7); failure to do so bars the appeal and precludes any presumption of ineffective assistance. The Court rejected the notion that reversible error in the assignments of error creates a rebuttable presumption of counsel’s ineffectiveness.