Ohio Supreme Court March 1, 1996, No. 95-1037 (State v. Nickelson)

Wright, J.

In his application to reopen, Nickelson claimed that his appellate counsel had been ineffective because he failed to raise the following issues on appeal: (1) prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, (2) trial counsel’s and the trial judge’s failure to explore the potentially prejudicial relationship *11between an assistant prosecutor and a juror, (3) trial counsel’s failure