1997 OHIO 168 - State v. Bies

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

79 Ohio St.3d 192

.]




              THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BIES, APPELLANT.
                        [Cite as State v. Bies,

1997-Ohio-168

.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
        conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
        Application denied when not timely filed.
          (No. 97-12—Submitted May 6, 1997—Decided July 16, 1997.)
     APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-920841.
                                 ___________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Michael Bies, was convicted of aggravated murder with
specifications, and of attempted rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to death.
Upon appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. State v.
Bies (Mar. 30, 1994), Hamilton App. No. C-920841, unreported,

1994 WL 102196

.
On direct appeal as of right, we also affirmed his convictions and sentence. State
v. Bies (1996),

74 Ohio St.3d 320

658 N.E.2d 754

, certiorari denied (1996),

517 U.S. ___

116 S.Ct. 1885

135 L. Ed.2d 180

.
        {¶ 2} On September 20, 1996, appellant filed an “Application for
Reopening” with the court of appeals pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v.
Murnahan (1992),

63 Ohio St.3d 60

584 N.E.2d 1204

, alleging ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel on his direct appeal. The court of appeals denied
the application as untimely and without good cause shown.
        {¶ 3} This appeal followed.
                                 ___________________
        Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and William E.
Breyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        Hallowes, Allen & Haynes and S. Scott Haynes; and J. Joseph Bodine, Jr.,
Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant.
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




                             ___________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying appellant’s
application for reopening for the same reasons articulated by the court of appeals.
Appellant has offered no compelling justification why his application was filed
beyond the time strictures of App.R. 26(B).
                                                               Judgment affirmed.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                             ___________________




                                         2