State v. Erwin - 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

**** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING ****

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. Erwin, Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Erwin (1994), Ohio St. 3d .]
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 from journalization of the court
of appeals' decision affirming the conviction, as required
by App.R. 26(B)(1).
(No. 94-1685--Submitted November 29, 1994 -- Decided
December 23, 1994.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Licking County, No.
93-CA-8.
Appellant, Max R. Erwin, Sr., was convicted of felonious
sexual penetration and gross sexual imposition in 1993 and
sentenced to eight to twenty-five years in prison. He
appealed, alleging admission of improper hearsay evidence,
which the prsecuting attorney improperly used in his closing
argument. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. State
v. Erwin, Sr. (Oct. 4, 1993), Licking App. No. 93-CA-8,
unreported. On June 6, 1994, he filed an application for
reopening of his appeal pursuant to App. R. 26 (B), alleging
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and other issues.
The court of appeals denied the motion, holding inter alia that
appellant had not shown good cause for failure to file the
motion within ninety days from the journalization of the court
of appeals's decision affirming the convictions, as required by
App. R. 26 (B) (1). Appellant appeals from that decision.

Robert L. Becker, Licking County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Matthew W. McFarland, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for
appellee.
Max R. Erwin, Sr., pro se.

Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment of the court of

appeals for the reason stated in its opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.