Legal Opinion

State v. Moore, Unpublished Decision (10-20-2005)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 20, 2005No. 02 CA 216UnpublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

{¶ 1} Appellant Brandon Moore has filed an application to reopen his direct appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B)(5), which states: "An 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." Appellant argues that his appellate counsel failed to argue on direct appeal that his statutory speedy trial rights were violated, and that this error constitutes ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

{¶ 2} A criminal defendant is entitled to effective assistance of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Evitts v. LuceySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. State v. BickerstaffOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. State v. RojasOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  5. State v. DillonOhio Supreme Court · 1995

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. MooreOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  2. State v. MooreOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. State v. Moore, 08 Ma 20 (3-24-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. State ex rel. Ross v. KrichbaumOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
  5. State v. Moore, 06-Ma-15 (3-12-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API