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 affirming the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B).
.]
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CARROLL, APPELLANT.
[Cite as State v. Carroll,
1995-Ohio-305
.]
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 affirming the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B).
(No. 94-2437—Submitted February 7, 1995—Decided April 26, 1995.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 62747.
__________________
{¶ 1} According to the court of appeals' opinion, appellant, Daniel Carroll,
was convicted of cocaine possession with a previous conviction for a drug offense,
carrying a concealed weapon with a violence specification, and having a weapon
while under disability with violence and firearm specifications. He appealed, and
the court of appeals affirmed the convictions. State v. Carroll (June 10, 1993),
Cuyahoga App. No. 62747, unreported. It is agreed that on August 25, 1994, he
filed an application to reopen his appeal pursuant to App. R. 26 (B), alleging
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the
application, holding that appellant failed to establish good cause for filing the
application more than ninety days after the judgment affirming his conviction on
appeal was journalized, as required by App. R. 26 (B) (1) and (2) (b). The court
also found that appellant's claims failed to establish a colorable claim of ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel. Appellant now appeals to this court.
__________________
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and John
W. Monroe, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Daniel Carroll, pro se.
__________________
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, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
__________________
2
