[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at
77 Ohio St.3d 49.]
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. TUCKER, APPELLANT.
[Cite as State v. Tucker, 1996-Ohio-369.]
Appellate procedure—Motion for “determination of a void judgment” asserting
that petitioner did not voluntarily waive his right to appellate counsel—
Motion denied when petitioner fails to show good cause for not filing
complaint about appellate representation within ninety days of
journalization of appellate judgment and failure to demonstrate a genuine
issue as to whether petitioner was deprived of effective assistance of
counsel on appeal as required by App.R. 26(B)(5).
(No. 95-2168—Submitted September 10, 1996—Decided November 6, 1996.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 89CA004533.
__________________
{¶ 1} In 1989, appellant, Homer Tucker, was convicted of aggravated
burglary after a trial in which he represented himself. He again represented himself
on appeal, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed. State v. Tucker (Aug. 1,
1990), Lorain App. No. 89CA004533, unreported, 1990 WL 108746, motion for
leave to appeal overruled (1990),
56 Ohio St.3d 703,
564 N.E.2d 707.
{¶ 2} In January 1992, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial
of Tucker’s third petition for postconviction relief. State v. Tucker (Jan. 29, 1992),
Lorain App. No. 91CA005078, unreported, 1992 WL 15974, motion to certify
overruled (1992),
63 Ohio St.3d 1474,
591 N.E.2d 244. In June 1992, we affirmed
the court of appeals’ rejection of Tucker’s petition for habeas corpus. Tucker v.
Collins (1992),
64 Ohio St.3d 77,
591 N.E.2d 1241.
{¶ 3} In late 1994, Tucker filed an application with the court of appeals
under App.R. 26(B) to reopen his appeal. The court of appeals denied the
application, and we affirmed that court’s decision not to reopen the appeal. State
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
v. Tucker (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 152,
652 N.E.2d 720. Subsequently, Tucker filed
with the court of appeals a motion for “determination of a void judgment,” asserting
that he did not voluntarily waive his right to appellate counsel. The court of appeals
denied that motion, finding that it had “already ruled on appellant’s previous motion
wherein he asserted the same argument.”
__________________
Gregory A. White, Lorain County Prosecuting Attorney, and Lisa A. Locke
Graves, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Homer Tucker, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 4} As we held previously, Tucker has failed to show good cause for not
filing his complaint about appellate representation within ninety days of
journalization of the appellate judgment. See State v. Tucker, 73 Ohio St.3d 152,
652 N.E.2d 720. Moreover, Tucker has not demonstrated “a genuine issue as to
whether [he] was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal” as
required by App.R. 26(B)(5). Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is
affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
2
