State v. Beard - 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. Beard, Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Beard (1994), Ohio St.3d .]
Appellate procedure -- Appeal from denial of late motion for
reconsideration pursuant to App.R. 26(A) denied, when.
(No. 94-1436 -- Submitted October 11, 1994 -- Decided
December 7, 1994.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Medina County, No.
2170-M.
According to the appellate court decisions, appellant
Brian Beard was convicted of aggravated robbery, theft, and
complicity to commit aggravated robbery. He appealed, and the
court of appeals affirmed the convictions. State v Beard (Oct.
7, 1992), Medina App. No. 2093-M, unreported. This court
overruled the jurisdictional motion for appeal on February 24,
1993. State v. Beard (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 1420, 607 N.E.2d
843.
On June 18, 1992, appellant filed a motion for new trial,
which was denied by the trial court on September 16, 1992, and
that denial was affirmed on appeal. State v. Beard (May 19,
1993), Medina App. No. 2170-M, unreported. Thereafter
(appellee alleges on or about April 15, 1994) appellant filed
either a motion for delayed reconsideration or a "motion for
leave to plead a delayed appeal to redress a manifest
miscarriage of justice/or applicable motion for relief."
Apparently, that motion was denied by the court of appeals on
or about May 18, 1994; appellant then filed a notice of appeal
to this court, which this court treated as an appeal as of
right of a denial of a motion to reopen the case because of
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel pursuant to App. R.
26(B). See Administrative Docket (Aug. 17, 1993), 67 Ohio
St.3d 1430, 616 N.E.2d 1114 ("Appeals to the Supreme Court
taken pursuant to State v. Murnahan [1992], 63 Ohio St.3d 60,
584 N.E.2d 1204, shall be treated and docketed like direct
appeals.").

Dean Holman, Medina County Prosecuting Attorney, and John
J. Dolatowski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Brian Beard, pro se.

Per Curiam. Upon further examination of the pleadings,
the court finds that the "Memorandum in Support of
Jurisdiction" attempts to combine an appeal as of right
following the denial of a motion to reopen a case for
ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to App. R. 26(B)
(Proposition 2) with an appeal from the denial of a late motion
for reconsideration pursuant to App. R. 26(A), from which there
is no appeal as of right. Insofar as appellant's memorandum is
in support of jurisdiction over a claimed appeal as of right
and in support of a motion for leave to appeal a decision under
App. R. 26(A), we dismiss the appeal as not involving a
substantial constitutional question and deny leave to appeal.
Insofar as the memorandum attempts to appeal the question of
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under App. R.
26(B), the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.