From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Hull

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 23, 1994
643 N.E.2d 546 (Ohio 1994)

Opinion

No. 94-2005

Submitted November 15, 1994 —

Decided December 23, 1994.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 51853.

Appellant, Floyd J. Hull, was indicted for rape, kidnapping, and robbery in 1985 and was subsequently convicted of all changes. He appealed, raising inter alia the issue that he was denied constitutional rights by the exclusion of potential black jurors. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. State v. Hull (Mar. 19, 1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 51853, unreported, 1987 WL 8134.

Appellant subsequently filed an application to reopen his appeal pursuant to State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court of appeals granted the motion, finding that the exclusion issue stated a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because the former appellate counsel had raised the exclusion issue, but failed to provide a transcript of the voir dire. Considering the claim on the merits, the court held that appellant had established that his appellate counsel was deficient, but had failed to establish prejudice, as required by Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, because the record did not reveal the race of the jurors excluded. Accordingly, the court of appeals reaffirmed the judgment of the trial court, but stated that since this issue requires proof of evidence outside the record, appellant could file a second petition for post-conviction relief on this issue. State v. Hull (Aug. 11, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 51853, unreported, 1994 WL 422262. Appellant appeals to this court and moves to supplement the record to identify the race of the excluded jurors through affidavits.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Karen L. Johnson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Floyd J. Hull, pro se.


The motion to supplement the record is denied, and the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Hull

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 23, 1994
643 N.E.2d 546 (Ohio 1994)
Case details for

State v. Hull

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. HULL, APPELLANT

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 23, 1994

Citations

643 N.E.2d 546 (Ohio 1994)
643 N.E.2d 546

Citing Cases

State v. Williams

In determining whether this failure constituted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, we may not…

State v. Wheatt

Accordingly, it would have been inappropriate for appellate counsel to have assigned error with respect to…