State v. Brown

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




             THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BROWN, APPELLANT.
                       [Cite as State v. Brown, 

.]
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 establish good cause for failure
        to file motion within ninety days from journalization of the appellate
        judgment, as required by App.R. 26(B).
  (No. 95-2122—Submitted December 12, 1995—Decided February 14, 1996.)
    APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA 8175.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Ronald Perry Brown, was convicted of rape and gross
sexual imposition. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. State
v. Brown (Apr. 13, 1984), Montgomery App. No. CA 8175, unreported.
        {¶ 2} He filed an application for reopening his appeal on July 24, 1995,
alleging as good cause for failure to file the application within ninety days of
journalization of the judgment sought to be reopened, as required by App.R. 26(B),
that a right to reopen was not announced before 1992, and after 1992, he did not
wish to jeopardize his first chance for parole by having a case pending. The court
of appeals rejected this reasoning, and appellant appealed to this court.
                                  __________________
        Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Carley J. Ingram, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        Ronald Perry Brown, pro se.
                                  __________________
                                SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. In this court,
appellant makes no attempt to establish good cause, but instead argues the questions
he wanted the court of appeals to hear, but which it did not hear. The application
was rejected for failure to state a good cause for late filing. That is the issue before
this court. Since appellant does not even address the issue, the judgment of the
court of appeals is affirmed.
                                                                   Judgment affirmed
        MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
                                 __________________




                                           2