State v. Kish

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                 THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. KISH, APPELLANT.
                        [Cite as State v. Kish, 

.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
        conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
        Application denied when appellate court finds that applicant failed to
        establish any prejudice as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(d).
     (No. 94-2222—Submitted January 24, 1995—Decided March 22, 1995.)
     APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 93CA005773.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Robb V. Kish, was convicted of attempted murder,
felonious assault, and aggravated menacing. The Court of Appeals for Lorain
County affirmed the convictions. He timely filed an application to reopen his direct
appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B), alleging that his appellate counsel was ineffective
by, as summarized by the court of appeals, "(1) failing to show in [appellant's] direct
appeal how he was prejudiced by the trial court's denial of his motion to remove his
appointed trial counsel; (2) failing to assign as error the denial of due process and
a fair trial resulting from the extreme bias and prejudice of the trial judge; and (3)
failing to assign as error trial counsel's ineffectiveness based on [at] least nine
separate reasons outlined in the application for reopening." The court of appeals
examined each claim and held that appellant had failed to establish any prejudice,
as required by App.R. 26 (B)(2)(d), and denied the application. Appellant appeals
to this court.
                                  __________________
        Gregory A. White, Lorain County Prosecuting Attorney, and Robert F.
Corts, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        Robb V. Kish, pro se.
                               SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




                                 __________________
          Per Curiam.
          {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated
in its opinion.
                                                                   Judgment affirmed.
          MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ.,
concur.
          COOK, J., not participating.
                                 __________________




                                            2