State v. Whalen

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




            THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. WHALEN, APPELLANT.
                       [Cite as State v. Whalen, 

.]
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 show good cause for failure to
        file the motion within ninety days after journalization of the court of
        appeals’ decision affirming the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B).
    (No. 95-2000—Submitted January 23, 1996—Decided Februay 28, 1996.)
     APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No C-930367.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} In April 1993, appellant, David M. Whalen, Jr., was convicted of two
counts of aggravated robbery, with firearms specifications, three counts of robbery,
with firearms specifications, and one count of theft, and was sentenced to prison.
The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. State v. Whalen (Sept.
7, 1994), Hamilton App. No. C-930367, unreported, 

.
        {¶ 2} The parties agree that in June 1995, appellant filed with the court of
appeals an application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective
assistance of his appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application,
finding that appellant had “failed to show good cause for filing his application more
than ninety days after this Court’s judgment was journalized, as required by App.R.
26(B)(2)(b).” Appellant appeals that denial to this court.
                                  __________________
        Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W.
Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        David M. Whalen, Jr., pro se.
                                  __________________
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




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




                                         2