State v. Coleman

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




           THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. COLEMAN, APPELLANT.
                      [Cite as State v. Coleman, 

.]
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 allege any substantive grounds
        for relief indicating that appellate counsel was ineffective.
        (No. 95-2492—Submitted March 5, 1996—Decided May 15, 1996.)
  APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 94APA10-1558.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} In September 1994, appellant, Byron S. Coleman, was convicted of
aggravated robbery and two counts of having a weapon under a disability with
specifications. Appellant was thereafter sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
Upon appeal, the convictions were affirmed. State v. Coleman (May 30, 1995),
Franklin App. No. 94APA10-1558, unreported. Appellant’s appeal to this court
was dismissed. State v. Coleman (1995), case No. 95-1389.
        {¶ 2} Subsequently, appellant filed an application for reopening before the
court of appeals pursuant to App. R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel.      The court of appeals denied the application, finding that
appellant did not allege any substantive grounds for relief indicating that appellate
counsel was ineffective. Appellant appeals that denial to this court.
                                    _______________
        Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Katherine
Press, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        Byron S. Coleman, pro se.
                                   ________________
        Per Curiam.
                               SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




          {¶ 3} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated
in its memorandum decision.
                                                                 Judgment affirmed.
          MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ.,
concur.
          WRIGHT, J., not participating.
                                 __________________




                                           2