State v. Colwell

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




            THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. COLWELL, APPELLANT.
                      [Cite as State v. Colwell, 

.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening from judgment and conviction
        based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—Application
        denied when applicant fails to show good cause for failure to file the
        motion within ninety days after journalization of the court of appeals’
        decision affirming the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B).
    (No. 95-2005—Submitted January 23, 1996—Decided February 28, 1996.)
     APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-930806.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Michael Colwell, was convicted of aggravated trafficking
in 1993 and sentenced accordingly. Upon appeal, the conviction was affirmed.
State v. Colwell (Dec. 7, 1994), Hamilton App. No. C-930806, unreported.
        {¶ 2} On June 12, 1994, appellant filed an application for reopening
pursuant to App. R. 26(B), alleging that he had hired an atorney to file the
application in a timely manner, but that the attorney had failed to act. The court of
appeals denied the application as untimely without good cause shown. State v.
Colwell (Sept. 12, 1995), Hamilton App. No. C-930806, unreported. This appeal
followed.
                                  __________________
        Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and William E.
Breyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        Michael Colwell, pro se.
                                  __________________
                                 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 3} We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reasons stated
in its judgment entry.1
                                                                           Judgment affirmed.
        MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
                                   __________________




1. Appellant’s motion to produce/transmit record, and motion to return copies instead of reclying
are also denied.




                                                2