State v. Mingo

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




             THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. MINGO, APPELLANT.
                       [Cite as State v. Mingo, 

.]
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 failure
        to file the motion within ninety days from journalization of the appellate
        judgment, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).
  (No. 95-1780—Submitted December 12, 1995—Decided February 14, 1996.)
     APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-930235.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, James H. Mingo, was convicted of two counts of
aggravated burglary, with specifications, and two counts of theft, also with
accompanying specifications, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The court
of appeals affirmed. State v. Mingo (Mar. 16, 1994), Hamilton App. No. C-930235,
unreported, 

.
        {¶ 2} In June 1995, appellant filed with the court of appeals an application
to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of
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 after the journalization of the appellate judgment, as required by
App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).
        {¶ 3} Appellant appeals the denial to this court.
                                  __________________
        Joeseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W.
Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        James H. Mingo, pro se.
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




                               __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 4} We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reason stated in
its entry.
                                                      Judgment affirmed.
        MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
                               __________________




                                          2