State v. Sailors

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




            THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SAILORS, APPELLANT.
                      [Cite as State v. Sailors, 

.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
        conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
        Application denied when not timely filed and applicant fails to show good
        cause for failure to file the motion within ninety days after journalization
        of the appellate judgment—App.R. 26(B)(1).
   (No. 95-1002—Submitted October 15, 1996—Decided December 11, 1996.)
         APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Wayne County, No. 2723.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} In February 1992, a jury convicted appellant, Thomas Lee Sailors, of
aggravated trafficking in cocaine. The court of appeals affirmed his conviction and
sentence. State v. Sailors (Oct. 7, 1992), Wayne App. No. 2723, unreported, 

.
        {¶ 2} On December 16, 1993, Sailors filed an application with the court of
appeals to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application for reopening,
finding that Sailors “has acknowledged that his motion was not timely filed.”
Further, the court found that Sailors has not shown “good cause” for the delay in
filing. See App.R. 26(B)(1).
        {¶ 3} Sailors now appeals that denial to this court.
                                  __________________
        Martin Frantz, Wayne County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        Thomas Lee Sailors, pro se.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
                           SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




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




                                        2