State v. Foster

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




             THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. FOSTER, APPELLANT.
                       [Cite as State v. Foster, 

.]
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 demonstrate genuine issue as
        to whether he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on
        appeal—App.R. 26(B)(5).
        (No. 95-2631—Submitted April 15, 1996—Decided June 5, 1996.)
    APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Muskingum County, No. CT 94-29.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, William H. Foster, was convicted of the charges of murder
and aggravated assault, both with gun specifications, and sentenced to prison. In
June 1995, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. State v. Foster
(June 14, 1995), Muskingum App. No. 94-29, unreported, 

, appeal
dismissed (1995), 

, 

.
        {¶ 2} Appellant also filed with the court of appeals an application to reopen
his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
The court of appeals, inter alia, held that appellant “failed to demonstrate that his
appellate counsel’s performance was deficient,” and denied appellant’s application
to reopen his appeal. Appellant appeals that denial to this court.
                                  __________________
        Mark C. Fleegle, Muskingum County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        William H. Foster, pro se.
                                  __________________


        Per Curiam.
                           SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       {¶ 3} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals, since appellant has
failed to demonstrate “a genuine issue as to whether … [he] was deprived of the
effective assistance of counsel on appeal.” App.R. 26(B)(5).
                                                               Judgment affirmed.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                             __________________




                                        2