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. HUMPHREY, APPELLANT.
[Cite as State v. Humphrey,
1995-Ohio-7
.]
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. 94-2736—Submitted March 21, 1995—Decided June 14, 1995.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 121891.
__________________
{¶ 1} Appellant, Paul M. Humphrey, was convicted of aggravated robbery
with a firearm specification and having a weapon while under disability with a
firearm specification and prior offense of violence specifications. The Court of
Appeals for Montgomery County affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v.
Humphrey (Jan. 13, 1987), Montgomery App. Nos. 9912 and 9900, unreported,
1987 WL 5527
.
{¶ 2} On October 5, 1994, more than seven and one-half years after his
convictions were affirmed, appellant filed an application to reopen his appeal under
State v. Murnahan (1992),
, alleging ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise the following issues: (1) the trial
court's failure to instruct the jury on the definition of "firearm," (2) trial counsel's
ineffectiveness for failure to object to an allegedly prejudicial statement by the
1. Appellate case No. 12189 is the number assigned to appellant's post-conviction-related appeals.
Appellate case No. 9912 is the number assinged to appellant's initial direct appeal. However, the
record is clear that appellant seeks to reopen his direct appeal (case No. 9912) and that the appellate
court denied that application, albeit under case No. 12189.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
prosecution, (3) trial counsel's ineffectiveness for failure to request a continuance
to produce an alibi witness, and (4) trial counsel's ineffectiveness for failure to
object to the in-court identification of appellant by the victim.
{¶ 3} The court of appeals held that appellant had failed to show good cause
for an untimely filing of the application under App. R. 26 (B) (2) (b) and denied the
application. Appellant now appeals to this court.
__________________
Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and
George A. Katchmer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Paul M. Humphrey, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 4} The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed on authority of State
v. Reddick (1995),
