State v. Carpenter

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




          THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CARPENTER, APPELLANT.
                    [Cite as State v. Carpenter, 

.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
        convictions based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
        Application denied when applicant fails to establish good cause for failing
        to file within ninety days after journalization of the court of appeals’
        decision affirming the convictions, as required by App.R. 26(B).
    (No. 95-1129—Submitted October 24, 1995—Decided January 31, 1996.)
      APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 90AP-803.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Robert Carpenter, was convicted of aggravated murder and
aggravated robbery and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of
thirty years to life and ten to twenty years, respectively. He appealed, and his
convictions were affirmed. State v. Carpenter (Mar. 12, 1991), Franklin App. No.
90AP-803, unreported.
        {¶ 2} In 1994, appellant filed an application to reopen his direct appeal
under App.R. 26(B), claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. As good
cause for failing to file within ninety days of journalization of the judgment sought
to be reopened, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), appellant stated that he was
unaware he could raise an assignment of error related to sufficiency of the evidence.
The court of appeals found that this reason did not constitute good cause, and
appellant appealed its decision to this court.
                                  __________________
        Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L.
Taylor, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        Dennis C. Belli, for appellant.
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




                             __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on authority of State
v. Reddick (1995), 

, 

.
                                                               Judgment affirmed.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
                             __________________




                                        2