State v. Colombo

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




           THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. COLOMBO, APPELLANT.
                     [Cite as State v. Colombo, 

.]
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 not filing
        his application in a timely manner, when no colorable claim of ineffective
        assistance of appellate counsel is stated, and when re judicata bars
        consideration of the application.
        (No. 95-652—Submitted July 12, 1995—Decided August 23, 1995.)
        APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 52715.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Anthony Colombo, was convicted of murder with a
firearms specification, carrying a concealed weapon, and felonious assault with a
firearms specification and sentenced accordingly. The court of appeals affirmed
his convictions and sentence. State v. Colombo (Oct. 7, 1987), Cuyahoga App. No.
52715, unreported, 

, appeal dismissed (Apr. 4, 1988), case No. 87-
2071.
        {¶ 2} On August 25, 1994, Colombo filed with the court of appeals an
application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance
of his appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application, finding that
appellant had failed to establish good cause for not filing his application in a timely
manner. Further, the court of appeals held that res judicata bars consideration of
this application for reopening, since Colombo could have raised these issues in his
previous pro se direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The court of appeals also found
the arguments asserted by Colombo not sufficient to establish a colorable claim of
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Colombo now appeals the denial to this
court.
                               __________________
         Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Diane
Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
         David L. Doughten, for appellant
                               __________________
         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