State v. White - 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

1 The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. White, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. White (1996), ___ Ohio St.3d ________.]
3 Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from
4
judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective
5
assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when
6
applicant fails to show good cause for failing to file motion
7
within ninety days from journalization of court of appeals'
8
decision affirming the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B).
9
(No. 95-2471 -- Submitted February 20, 1996 -- Decided April 17,
10 1996.)
11 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Clark County, No. 1999.
12
According to appellant, Dale D. White, in 1984 he was convicted of
13 aggravated robbery with a firearm specification and with having a weapon
14 while under a disability. Upon appeal, the conviction was affirmed. State v.
15 White (July 22, 1985), Clark App. No. 1999, unreported. Appellant's
16 further appeal to this court was dismissed, sua sponte. State v. White, case
17 No. 86-76.
18
On September 13, 1995, appellant filed with the court of appeals a
19 delayed application for reopening pursuant to App. R. 26(B), alleging
20 ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the

1 motion as untimely without good cause shown as required by App. R.
2 26(B)(2)(b). This appeal followed.
3 ____________________________________________________
4
Dale D. White, pro se.
5 _____________________________________________________
6
Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the
7 reason stated in its judgment entry.
8

Judgment affirmed.
9
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK,
10 JJ., concur.
11
WRIGHT, J., not participating.
12

2