DocketNumber: No. 90326.
Citation Numbers: 2009 Ohio 1600
Judges: COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, Judge:
Filed Date: 3/31/2009
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the applicant must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense. Strickland v.Washington (1984),
{¶ 3} In Strickland, the United States Supreme Court stated that a court's scrutiny of an attorney's work must be highly deferential. The court further stated that it is too tempting for a defendant to second-guess his attorney after conviction and that it would be all too easy for a court to conclude that a specific act or omission was deficient, especially when examining the matter in hindsight. Accordingly, "a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Strickland, at 2065.
{¶ 4} In regard to claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the appellate attorney's discretion to decide which issues he or she believes are the most fruitful arguments. "Experienced advocates since time beyond memory have emphasized the importance of winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal and focusing on one central issue, if possible, or at most on a few key issues." Jones v. Barnes (1983),
{¶ 5} Manning's first and second assignments of error are interrelated so we will address them together. In his first and second assignments of error, Manning argues that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the State's witness, Dr. Bar-Shain and that counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the testimony. *Page 4
Specifically, Manning argues that Dr. Bar-Shain was able to give bolstering testimony to the complaining witness' veracity in violation of State v. Boston (1989),
{¶ 6} However, as we have found on numerous occasions, Boston does not apply when the child victim actually testifies and is subject to cross-examination. State v. Futo, Cuyahoga App. No. 89791,
{¶ 7} Accordingly, we deny the application to reopen.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., and MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCUR. *Page 1