1995 OHIO 158 - State v. Slagle

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

72 Ohio St.3d 509

.]




             THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SLAGLE, APPELLANT.
                       [Cite as State v. Slagle,

1995-Ohio-158

.]
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 failing
        to file his application within ninety days after journalization of the court of
        appeals' decision, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), and applicant's failure
        to establish a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
        (No 94-2207—Submitted April 18, 1995—Decided July 19, 1995.)
       APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 55759.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Billy Slagle, was convicted of aggravated murder,
aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary and sentenced to death. After a
remand, the court of appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v. Slagle
(Sept. 26, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 55759, unreported,

1991 WL 191836

. We
also affirmed when he appealed to this court as of right. State v. Slagle (1992),

65 Ohio St.3d 597

605 N.E.2d 916

, certiorari denied (1993), Slagle v. Ohio

510 U.S., 114

S.

Ct. 106, 126 L.Ed.2d 72

. According to the parties, Slagle petitioned the trial
court in July 1994, for postconviction relief, and that petition is still pending.
        {¶ 2} In August 1994, Slagle filed with the court of appeals an application
to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of his
appellate counsel.      The court of appeals denied the application, finding that
appellant had failed to establish good cause for not filing the application to reopen
within ninety days from the journalization of the appellate judgment, as required
by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b). The court of appeals also held that appellant's seven
proposed assignments of error failed to establish a colorable claim of ineffective
                               SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




assistance of appellate counsel. Additionally, Slagle failed to demonstrate that
circumstances render the application of res judicata to his prayer for reopening
unjust.
          {¶ 3} Appellant appeals the denial to this court.
                                 __________________
          Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Karen
L. Johnson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
          David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Linda E. Prucha and Pamela
Prude-Smithers, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.
                                 __________________
          Per Curiam.
          {¶ 4} We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reasons stated
in its opinion.
                                                                 Judgment affirmed.
          MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
                                 __________________




                                            2