State v. Elkins

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




             THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. ELKINS, APPELLANT.
                       [Cite as State v. Elkins, 

.]
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 show good cause for failure to
        file the motion within ninety days from journalization of the appellate
        judgment, as required by App.R. 26(B).
      (No. 94-2086—Submitted July 26, 1995—Decided October 25, 1995.)
        APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. CA-8972.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} On July 21, 1994, appellant, Ronald Dale Elkins, filed with the court
of appeals an application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Almost fourteen months had passed
since the affirmance of his conviction, and the court of appeals “overruled” the
application without stating its reasons for doing so, as required by App. R. 26(B)(6).
We remanded the case for compliance with that rule. State v. Elkins (1995), 

, 

. On remand, the court of appeals found that
appellant had not shown good cause for filing his application to reopen more than
ninety days after the journalization of the appellate judgment, as required by App.
R.26(B)(2)(b), and also reviewed the merits of Elkins’ claims and concluded that
he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel.
        {¶ 2} Appellant appeals the denial to this court.
                                     ______________
        Ronald Dale Elkins, pro se.
                                     ______________
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 3} 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