# State v. Barnett

> Ohio Court of Appeals · April 22, 1991 · 73 Ohio App. 3d 244

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3751028

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. BARNETT, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** April 22, 1991
- **Citations:** 73 Ohio App. 3d 244; 596 N.E.2d 1101; 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 1822
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brogan
- **Judges:** Grady, Brogan, Wolff
- **Cited by:** 235 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3751028

## Opinion text

Brogan, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in Judge Grady’s opinion. Although the record fails to establish why the appellant’s trial was set outside the ninety-day requirement for
*252
incarcerated defendants, I will presume the regularity of the proceedings below in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
An accused is entitled to a reasonably effective counsel and a plea of guilty does not automatically insulate the accused’s conviction from collateral attack if it can be demonstrated that defense counsel failed to adequately represent the accused prior to counseling his client to enter a plea of guilty. I believe the resolution of that issue is appropriately commended to resolution in postconviction proceedings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3751028. Public record. Not legal advice.