State v. Fair

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




               THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. FAIR, APPELLANT.
                        [Cite as State v. Fair, 

.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
        conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
        Application denied when applicant fails to establish good cause for filing
        the application more than ninety days after the effective date of App.R.
        26(B) and when no colorable issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is
        found.
  (No. 94-1680—Submitted November 1, 1994—Decided December 30, 1994.)
     APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 90AP-363.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Eddie J. Fair, was convicted of aggravated murder,
aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and rape, and sentenced to thirty years to life. He
appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the convictions. State v. Fair (July 6,
1991), Franklin App. No. 90AP-363, unreported. He asserts that on February 8,
1994 he filed a motion for delayed reconsideration (reopening) in the court of
appeals based on "State v. Murnahan (1992), 

 [

],
and … by App.R. 26(B), as amended effective July 1, 1993," alleging ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel in the presentation of issues concerning testimony
of appellant's alleged common-law wife and a "jailhouse lawyer." The court of
appeals held that appellant failed to establish good cause for filing the application
more than ninety days after the effective date of App.R. 26 (B), and otherwise found
no colorable issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, and denied the application.
Appellant appeals from that decision.
                                  __________________
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




        Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joyce S.
Anderson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        Eddie J. Fair, pro se.
                                 __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 2} The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated
in its opinion.
                                                             Judgment accordingly.
        MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY
and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.
                                 __________________




                                          2