State v. White

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




             THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. WHITE, APPELLANT.
                        [Cite as State v. White, 

.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
        conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
        Application denied when no genuine issue whether applicant was
        prejudiced by any alleged deficient performance of his appellate counsel
        exists.
   (No. 95-1746—Submitted November 7, 1995—Decided January 31, 1996.)
     APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-930711.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Carey White, was convicted of aggravated murder with a
firearm specification, two counts of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications,
and a specification of prior aggravated murder for each of these offenses. He was
sentenced to from thirty years to life imprisonment. He appealed, and the court of
appeals affirmed the convictions. State v. White (Jan. 18, 1995), Hamilton App.
No. C-930711, unreported. Subsequently, he filed an application for delayed
reconsideration under State v. Murnahan (1992), 

, 

. The court of appeals “reviewed appellant’s claims and the record … [and
found] no genuine issue as to whether appellant was prejudiced by any alleged
deficient performance by his appellate counsel.” Appellant appeals from this
decision.
                                  __________________
        Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Tina I.
Ernst, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        Carey White, pro se.
                                  __________________
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 2} We cannot tell from the limited record what claims appellant raised
in the court of appeals. The gist of the issue raised in this court seems to be that
appellate counsel was ineffective for failure to pursue a claim that a witness at trial
may have committed perjury because she was offered immunity from prosecution
for her testimony. We agree with the court of appeals that this claim is too
speculative to raise a genuine issue.
       {¶ 3} Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
                                                                  Judgment affirmed.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
                               __________________




                                          2