Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—Application denied when, inter alia, no colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel exists.
.]
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. GRAHAM, APPELLANT.
[Cite as State v. Graham,
1994-Ohio-60
.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
Application denied when, inter alia, no colorable claim of ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel exists.
(No. 94-1879—Submitted November 29, 1994—Decided December 23, 1994.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 33350.
_________________
{¶ 1} According to appellant, Floyd Graham, he was convicted in 1973 of
first-degree murder (former R.C. 2901.01), taking the life of a police officer (former
R.C. 2901.04), and intentional shooting (former R.C. 2901.23). The Court of
Appeals for Cuyahoga County affirmed Graham's convictions, State v. Graham
(June 12, 1975), Cuyahoga App. No. 33350, unreported. This court overruled
Graham's motion for leave to appeal.
{¶ 2} On May 6, 1994, Graham filed in the court of appeals a delayed
application for reconsideration of his appeal from the judgment of conviction. The
application, filed pursuant to App. R. 14(B) and former App. R. 26, alleged
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. See State v. Murnahan (1992),
. The court of appeals overruled the application. (May
17, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 33350, unreported. Graham did not appeal that
judgment.
{¶ 3} However, on June 10, 1994, Graham applied again for reopening of
the appeal, this time under App. R. 26(B), adopted July 1, 1993. The court of
appeals denied this second application because Graham had not shown good cause
for failing to file within ninety days after App. R. 26(B) took effect; because the
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
application exceeded the ten-page limit of App. R. 26(B)(4); and because the court's
denial of the May 6th application was res judicata to the June 10th application.
Nonetheless, the court also examined the application's merits, finding that "there
exists no colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel." Graham
appeals the denial of his June 10th application.
__________________
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and
George J. Sadd, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Paul Mancino, Jr., for appellant.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated
in that court's opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY
and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.
__________________
2
