State v. Green

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




             THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. GREEN, APPELLANT.
                        [Cite as State v. Green, 

.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
        conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
        Application denied when no colorable claim of ineffective assistance of
        appellate counsel shown.
   (No. 95-1451—Submitted November 7, 1995—Decided January 10, 1996.)
     APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 14371.\
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Grady G. Green II, was convicted of felonious assault,
aggravated burglary, and two firearm specifications. He was sentenced to seven to
twenty-five years on the aggravated burglary count and seven to fifteen years on
the felonious assault count. These sentences were to be served concurrently. He
was also sentenced to two concurrent three-year sentences on the firearm
specifications, to run consecutively to the aggravated burglary and felonious assault
sentences. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. State v.
Green (Sept. 23, 1994), Montgomery App. No. 14371, unreported, 

.
        {¶ 2} On January 5, 1995, appellant filed an application to reopen his appeal
under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing
to argue that (1) appellant’s convictions for felonious assault and aggravated
burglary should have been merged under R.C. 2941.25(A); (2) appellant should
have been convicted of only one firearm specification under R.C. 2929.71(B); (3)
admission of appellant’s prior bad acts constituted reversible error; and (4) the court
erred by admitting a statement by the victim. The court of appeals denied the
application, holding that (1) appellant’s felonious assault and aggravated burglary




                                              1
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




offenses were committed separately; (2) although it agreed that appellant should
have been convicted of only one firearm specification, the error was harmless
because the two firearm specifications were ordered to be served concurrently; (3)
the evidence of prior bad acts was admissible; and (4) not challenging the victim’s
statement may have been a strategic choice. This appeal followed.
                              __________________
        Mathias H. Heck, Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Carley
J. Ingram, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        Grady G. Green II, pro se.
                              __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 3} We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reasons stated
in its opinion.
                                                               Judgment affirmed.
        MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
                              __________________




                                         2