State v. Peeples

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




            THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. PEEPLES, APPELLANT.
                       [Cite as State v. Peeples, 

.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
        conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
        Application denied when no colorable claim of ineffective assistance of
        appellate counsel stated.
      (No. 95-740—Submitted July 26, 1995—Decided December 6, 1995.)
      APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No. 92 CA 7.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Kavin L. Peeples, was convicted of aggravated murder in
violation of R.C. 2903.01(A) with specifications pursuant to R.C. 2929.04
(aggravated murder committed while the defendant was an inmate in a detention
facility). The Court of Appeals for Pickaway County affirmed the judgment of the
trial court. State v. Peeples (1994), 

, 

.
        {¶ 2} On November 10, 1994, appellant filed an application requesting
delayed reconsideration. The court of appeals treated this as an application for
reopening pursuant to App. R. 26(B), and found that, although appellant had
established good cause for not filing the application within the ninety days required
under App. R. 26(B), he had failed to state a colorable claim of ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel.        Thus, the appellate court denied appellant’s
application for delayed reconsideration, and this appeal followed.
                                  __________________
        Kavin Peeples, pro se.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       {¶ 3} In his application to reopen, appellant raised five separate issues
regarding appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness. Each issue involved appellant’s
alleged mental incapcity. However, the court of appeals found that “[t]he issue of
Peeple’s mental incapacity was previously and properly raised on direct appeal.”
Specifically, the court of appeals found that appellant’s problem was not his
appellate counsel’s performance, but the fact that his motion to suppress his
confession to the murder was denied at trial. We concur.
       {¶ 4} Accordingly, 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