State v. Smith - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Smith, Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Smith (1994), Ohio St.3d .]
Appellate procedure -- App.R. 26(B) -- Application for
reopening appeal from judgment of conviction based on claim of
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel -- Application
denied when appellant fails to show that appellate counsel was
ineffective or that appellant was prejudiced by his counsel's
performance.
(No. 94-813 -- Submitted August 17, 1994 -- Decided
November 9, 1994.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.
54416.
Appellant, Donald L. Smith, alleges he was convicted of
one count of aggravated robbery, one count of kidnapping, and
one count of felonious assault and was sentenced to three
concurrent terms of imprisonment, two for ten to twenty-five
years and one for eight to fifteen years. He appealed, and the
Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County affirmed the conviction by
judgment entry of November 10, 1988. In 1993, he applied to
the court of appeals under App. R. 26(B) to reopen the appeal
from the judgment of conviction and sentence, alleging
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court of
appeals denied the application on the basis that appellant
failed to meet the standard for reopening his appeal. In other
words, appellant failed to show that appellate counsel was
ineffective or that appellant was prejudiced by his counsel's
performance. Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668,
104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. Appellant appeals the denial
to this court.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Karen L. Johnson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,
for appellee.
Donald L. Smith, pro se.

Per Curiam. The decision of the court of appeals is
affirmed for the reasons stated by the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.