State v. Mancini - 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. Mancini, Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Mancini (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
filed more than ninety days after effective date of App.R.
26(B).
(No. 94-1834 -- Submitted October 24, 1994 -- Decided
December 21, 1994.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.
63892.
Appellant, John Mancini, pled guilty to and was convicted
of robbery, theft, and possession of drugs, and was sentenced
to prison in 1991. In 1992, he filed a delayed appeal, but the
court of appeals affirmed the conviction in January 1993.
Appellant's jurisdictional motion to this court was overruled.
State v. Mancini (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 1507, 613N.E.2d 1045
[certiorari denied ( ), U.S. , S.Ct.
, L.Ed.2d .] On June 16, 1994 he applied to the court
of appeals pursuant to App. R. 26(B) to reopen the appeal from
the judgment of conviction alleging ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel for failure to argue that appellant's use of
prescription drugs affected the voluntary nature of his plea,
that his Fifth Amendment rights, were impaired when the trial
court failed to determine that they were affirmatively waived,
and that the trial court failed to establish a factual basis
for the guilty plea. The court of appeals denied the
application on the basis that the appellate counsel's handling
of the issues was not ineffective, and that appellant had not
shown good cause for not filing his application within ninety
days after App. R. 26(B) took effect. Appellant appeals the
denial to this court.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and George J. Sadd, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,

for appellee.
John Mancini, pro se.

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

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.