Appellate procedure—App.R. 26(B)—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—Application denied when appellate court finds no genuine issue as to whether applicant was denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal.
.]
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. TROUTMAN, APPELLANT.
[Cite as State v. Troutman,
1995-Ohio-20
.]
Appellate procedure—App.R. 26(B)—Application for reopening appeal from
judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel—Application denied when appellate court finds no
genuine issue as to whether applicant was denied effective assistance of
counsel on appeal.
(No. 94-2220—Submitted January 10, 1995—Decided March 22, 1995.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, Nos. 93CA005686,
93CA005687 and 93CA005688.
__________________
{¶ 1} Appellant, Coy R. Troutman, was convicted of engaging in a pattern
of corrupt activity, two counts of theft, two counts of receiving stolen property,
possession of marijuana, possession of criminal tools, and two counts of aggravated
trafficking in marijuana. The Court of Appeals for Lorain County reversed one
theft conviction, but affirmed the judgment of the trial court in all other respects.
State v. Troutman (July 6, 1994), Lorain App. Nos. 93CA005686, 93CA005687
and 93CA005688, unreported.
{¶ 2} Appellant then filed with the court of appeals an application to reopen
his appeal, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, pursuant to App.R.
26(B). According to the court of appeals, appellant raised the following issues in
the application regarding the failure of appellate counsel: (1) to argue that trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss (a) Count 6 of the indictment
for omitting the material element of "knowingly," (b) Counts 4 and 5 for omitting
the material element of "purpose," and (c) Count 1 for omitting the material
elements of "knowingly" and/or "recklessly"; (2) to challenge the trial court's lack
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
of jurisdiction to conduct a bench trial; (3) to challenge admissions made by
appellant, in violation of his right to counsel; (4) to challenge the verdict on Count
2 as being against the manifest weight of the evidence; (5) to challenge the trial
court's failure to require the state to elect upon which of two indictments to proceed;
and (6) to challenge the trial court's refusal to order the state to disclose the
confidential serial numbers on vehicles seized from appellant's property. The court
of appeals examined each issue and denied the application, finding no "genuine
issue as to whether the applicant was denied effective assistance of counsel on
appeal." App.R. 26(B)(5). Appellant appeals to this court as of right.
__________________
Gregory A. White, Lorain County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jonathan E.
Rosenbaum, Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Coy R. Troutman, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated
in its decision denying the application to reopen the appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ.,
concur.
COOK, J., not participating.
__________________
2
