State v. Mancini

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




            THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. MANCINI, APPELLANT.
                      [Cite as State v. Mancini, 

.]
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. 94-1834—Submitted October 24, 1994—Decided December 21, 1994.)
       APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 63892.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, John Mancini, pled guilty to and was convicted of robbery,
theft, and possession of drugs, and was sentenced to prison in 1991. In 1992, he
filed a delayed appeal, but the court of appeals affirmed the conviction in January
1993. Appellant's jurisdictional motion to this court was overruled. State v.
Mancini (1993), 

, 613N.E.2d 1045. On June 16, 1994 he applied
to the court of appeals pursuant to App. R. 26(B) to reopen the appeal from the
judgment of conviction alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for
failure to argue that appellant's use of prescription drugs affected the voluntary
nature of his plea, that his Fifth Amendment rights, were impaired when the trial
court failed to determine that they were affirmatively waived, and that the trial court
failed to establish a factual basis for the guilty plea. The court of appeals denied
the application on the basis that the appellate counsel's handling of the issues was
not ineffective, and that appellant had not shown good cause for not filing his
application within ninety days after App. R. 26(B) took effect. Appellant appeals
the denial to this court.
                                  __________________
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and
George J. Sadd, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
       John Mancini, pro se.
                               __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 2} The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated
therein.
                                                                Judgment affirmed.
       MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY
and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.
                               __________________




                                         2