State v. Eads

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




              THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. EADS, APPELLANT.
                         [Cite as State v. Eads, 

.]
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 appellate
        judgment as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) and proposed assignments of
        error fail to establish colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate
        counsel.
       (No. 95-146—Submitted April 24, 1995—Decided August 23, 1995.)
       Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 62775.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Daniel T. Eads, was convicted of murder. On direct appeal
as of right, the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County unanimously affirmed the
conviction. State v. Eads (July 15, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 62775, unreported,

. We overruled Eads' motion for leave to appeal and claimed
appeal of right on November 17, 1993. State v. Eads, No. 93-1751.
        {¶ 2} On April 18, 1994, Eads filed an application for reopening 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 the application to reopen within ninety days from the
journalization of the appellate judgment, as required by App. R. 26(B)(2)(b). The
court of appeals also held that appellant's five proposed assignments of error failed
to establish a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Further,
Eads failed to demonstrate that circumstances render the application of res judicata
to his prayer for reopening unjust. Appellant appeals the denial to this court.
                               SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




                                __________________
        Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Karen
L. Johnson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for appellee.
        Daniel Eads, pro se.
                                __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 3} We affirm the judgment 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