Legal Opinion

State v. McNeill

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 28, 1998No. 97-1974PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

In his first proposition of law, McNeill contends that the court of appeals erred by denying his application without considering whether he made colorable claims of ineffective assistance. We disagree.

App.R. 26(B)(2) states in pertinent part, “An application for reopening shall contain * * * (e) Any parts of the record available to the applicant and all supplemental affidavits upon which the applicant relies.” (Emphasis added.) McNeill failed to attach any part of the record to his application. His sole excuse is that, when he filed the application, the record was in the custody of this…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. WicklineOhio Supreme Court · 1996

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State v. McNeillOhio Court of Appeals · 2000
  2. State v. FrazierOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
  3. State v. JonesOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  4. State v. WadeOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
  5. State v. McNeillOhio Supreme Court · 1998

8 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