 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Walker12/12/2005
t performance prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St.3d 94, 2002-Ohio-3751, 772 N.E.2d 81. The defendant must show that there was a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors, the result of the trial would have been different. Id. Baldwin claims that her counsel was ineffective for the following reasons: 1) only one witness was called besides Baldwin and 2) violated a local rule requiring disclosure of potential witnesses in writing. This court notes that Baldwin raises several other alleged problems with the attorney, but concedes that those problems are not reflected in the record. Without any support in the record, this court is unable to address those issues.
{ } The first argument made by Baldwin is that her counsel was ineffective for not calling all the potential witnesses. The decision whether to call a witness is "within the rubric of trial strategy and will not be second-guessed by a reviewing court." State v. Williams, 99 Ohio St.3d 493, 2003-Ohio-4396, 794 N.E.2d 27, . While the decision to call or not to call these witnesses might be debatable, it does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Martin, 2nd Dist. No. 20610, 2005-Ohio-1369, . The record does not provide any evidence to support a claim that the failure to call the witnesses was not sound trial strategy and was thus did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
{ } Baldwin also claims that her attorney was ineffective for failing to comply with a local rule requiring him to disclose in writing all potential witnesses. However, this failure had no effect on the trial. The attorney for HCJFS merely requested that since an oral notification had been given, the list be placed upon the record. This was done and the case proceeded. Since no prejudice could possibly have resulted from this mistake, it cannot be deemed to be ineffective assistance of counsel. The second assignment of error is overruled.
{ } The judgments of the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County, Juvenile Division are affirmed.
Judgments affirmed.
CUPP, P.J., and SHAW, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|