1994 OHIO 58 - State v. Durr

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

71 Ohio St.3d 395

.]




              THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. DURR, APPELLANT.
                        [Cite as State v. Durr,

1994-Ohio-58

.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
        conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
        Application denied when no colorable claim of ineffective assistance of
        counsel is found.
   (No. 94-1820—Submitted October 24, 1994—Decided December 30, 1994.)
       APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 57140.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Darryl Durr, was convicted of one count of aggravated
murder with specifications that the murder was committed while the appellant was
committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing after committing, aggravated robbery,
rape, and kidnapping, and of kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and rape, each with
a violence specification. He was sentenced to death. The court of appeals affirmed
the convictions.     State v. Durr (Dec. 7, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 57140,
unreported. We also affirmed the convictions. State v. Durr (1991),

58 Ohio St.3d 86

568 N.E.2d 674

.
        {¶ 2} On June 30, 1993, appellant filed with the court of appeals an
application pursuant to State v. Murnahan (1992),

63 Ohio St. 3d 60

584 N.E. 2d 1204

, for delayed reconsideration, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for
failure to raise thirty-five issues on direct appeal. The court of appeals examined
each issue, found no colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and denied
the application. Appellant now appeals that decision to this court.
                                  __________________
        Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Carmen M. Marino, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




        David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, William S. Lazarow and Randy
D. Ashburn, for appellant.
                                __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 3} 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, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and
PFEIFER, JJ., concur.
        WRIGHT, J., dissents.
                                __________________




                                          2