1996 OHIO 2 - State v. Clark

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

75 Ohio St.3d 412

.]




             THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CLARK, APPELLANT.
                        [Cite as State v. Clark,

1996-Ohio-2

.]
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 demonstrate a genuine issue as
        to whether appellate counsel provided constitutionally adequate
        representation.
     (No. 95-2332—Submitted February 20, 1996—Decided April 10, 1996.)
      APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 65805.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant was convicted of murder with a gun specification and
sentenced to a term of imprisonment of fifteen years to life, consecutive with three
years on the gun specification. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and
sentence. State v. Clark (1995),

101 Ohio App.3d 389

655 N.E.2d 795

, appeal
dismissed,

72 Ohio St.3d 1548

650 N.E.2d 1367

.
        {¶ 2} In May 1995, appellant filed an application to reopen his appeal under
App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel.            In
September 1995, the court of appeals denied his application based, in part, upon
appellant’s failure “to demonstrate a genuine issue as to whether his appellate
counsel provided constitutionally adequate representation.” Appellant appeals the
denial to this court.
                                _____________________
        Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Karen
L. Johnson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        Lamont Clark, pro se.
                                _____________________
                               SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




          Per Curiam.
          {¶ 3} We affirm the decision of the court of appeals based upon appellant’s
failure to demonstrate a genuine issue as to whether his appellate counsel provided
constitutionally adequate representation.
                                                                 Judgment affirmed.
          MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ.,
concur.
          WRIGHT, J., not participating.
                                __________________




                                            2