State v. Harris - 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. Harris, Appellant.
2
[Cite as State v. Harris (1995), _____ 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 establish good cause for failing to file within
7
ninety days after journalization of the court of appeals'
8
decision affirming the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B).
9

(No. 95-1373--Submitted October 24, 1995--Decided January 10,
10
1996.)
11
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 11208.
12

Appellant, Stanford L. Harris, was convicted of two counts of
13
aggravated robbery in 1983. This conviction was affirmed on appeal. State
14
v. Harris (Nov. 23, 1983), Summit App. No. 11208, unreported, 1983 WL
15
3928.
16

Over eleven years later, on May 23, 1995, appellant filed an
17
application for reopening pursuant to App. R. 26(B). The court of appeals
18
denied the application as untimely without good cause shown. State v.
19
Harris (June 20, 1995), Summit App. No. 11208, unreported. This appeal
20
followed.

1

Maureen O'Connor, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and
2
William D. Wellemeyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
3

Stanford L. Harris, pro se.
4

Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the
5
reasons stated in its opinion.
6
Judgment affirmed.
7

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER
8
and COOK, JJ., concur.
9

2