Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—Application denied when filed more than ninety days after effective date of App.R. 26(B).
.]
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SPAULDING, APPELLANT.
[Cite as State v. Spaulding,
1994-Ohio-42
.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
Application denied when filed more than ninety days after effective date of
App.R. 26(B).
(No. 94-1474—Submitted October 24, 1994—Decided December 20, 1994.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 14408.
__________________
{¶ 1} Appellant, John Spaulding, was convicted of aggravated robbery in
1989. He appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the conviction. State v.
Spaulding (June 27, 1990), Summit App. No. 14408, unreported. In 1994, he
applied to the court of appeals under App. R. 26(B) to reopen the appeal from the
judgment of conviction, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The
court of appeals denied the application on the basis that it was filed more than ninety
days after the July 1, 1993 effective date of App. R. 26(B) and appellant had not
shown good cause for the delay. Appellant appeals the denial to this court.
__________________
Lynn C. Slaby, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and William D.
Wellemeyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
John Spaulding, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 2} The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated
therein.
Judgment affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
A.W. Sweeney and Wright, JJ., dissent.
__________________
2
