stating that failure to object insufficient on its own to establish Highland App. No. 25CA24 34 ineffective assistance of counsel; instead, a defendant still must demonstrate that counsel substantially violated an essential duty and that counsel's performance materially prejudiced the defense
How later courts described this case
- stating that failure to object insufficient on its own to establish Highland App. No. 25CA24 34 ineffective assistance of counsel; instead, a defendant still must demonstrate that counsel substantially violated an essential duty and that counsel's performance materially prejudiced the defense
- stating that failure to object insufficient on its own to establish ineffective assistance of counsel; instead, a defendant still must demonstrate that counsel substantially violated an essential duty and that counsel’s performance materially prejudiced the defense
- looking to § 2929.04(B)(7) for proper definition of mitigating factors and finding trial court’s use of different definition in subsequent written opinion was harmless error in part because jury was given proper § 2929.04(B) instruction at time
- "[Mhtigating factors under [Ohio law] are not related to a defendant's culpability but, rather, are those factors that are relevant to the issue of whether an SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A ep(D offender. .. should be sentenced to death."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Holmes, J.,
concurring. I concur in both the syllabus and judgment and, in the main, with the total opinion. I write solely to reference my disagreement with State v. Penix (1987), 32 Ohio St. 3d 369 , 513 N.E. 2d 744 , which is cited with approval by the majority herein.