Appellate procedure—App.R. 26(B)—Application for reopening appeal from judgment of conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—Application denied when appellant fails to show that appellate counsel was ineffective.
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at
70 Ohio St.3d 641
.]
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BRADY, APPELLANT.
[Cite as State v. Brady,
1994-Ohio-50
.]
Appellate procedure—App.R. 26(B)—Application for reopening appeal from
judgment of conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel—Application denied when appellant fails to show that appellate
counsel was ineffective.
(No. 94-1206—Submitted August 17, 1994—Decided November 9, 1994.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 16329.
__________________
{¶ 1} Appellant, Harold Brady II, alleges he was convicted of one count of
felonious assault and one count of burglary. He appealed, and the court of appeals
affirmed the conviction by judgment entry of January 12, 1994. Appellant's motion
to certify the record to this court was overruled. State v. Brady (1994),
. He applied to the court of appeals to reopen the appeal
from the judgment of conviction, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel. In May 1994, the court of appeals denied the application on the basis that
appellant did not show that appellate counsel was ineffective. Appellant appeals
the denial to this court.
__________________
Lynn C. Slaby, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip D.
Bogdanoff, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Harold Brady, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 2} The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated
by the court of appeals.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY
and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.
__________________
2
