State v. Paris

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




              THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. PARIS, APPELLANT.
                        [Cite as State v. Paris, 

.]
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 show good cause for failing to
        file his application within ninety days after journalization of the court of
        appeals’ decision affirming the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B).
       (No. 95-2425—Submitted June 25, 1996—Decided August 7, 1996.)
          APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Clark County, No. 2836.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} In June 1991, appellant, David Paris, was convicted of felonious
assault and sentenced to prison. In March 1992, the court of appeals affirmed the
conviction and sentence. State v. Paris (Mar. 26, 1992), Clark App. No. 2836,
unreported, 

.
        {¶ 2} It is undisputed that Paris filed an application in August 1995 with the
court of appeals to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel. In October 1995, the court of appeals denied
appellant’s motion to reopen because Paris failed to file his application within
ninety days of the journalization of the appellate judgment, as required by App.R.
26 (B). Further, the court found that Paris “has failed to show good cause for his
delay in filing his application to reopen his appeal.”
        {¶ 3} Appellant appeals the denial to this court.
                                  __________________
        Stephen A. Schumaker, Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Douglas
M. Rastatter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, David Klaus and Angela Wilson
Miller, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.
                              __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated
in its decision. See State v. White (1995), 

, 

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




                                         2