State v. Goines - 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. Goines, Appellant.
2
[Cite as State v. Goines (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 establish ineffective assistance of counsel on
7
the record presented.
8

(No. 95-1325--Submitted October 24, 1995--Decided January 31,
9
1996.)
10
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95APA02-
11
204.
12

Appellant, Larry D. Goines, was convicted by a jury of two counts of
13
robbery, and sentenced accordingly. The court of appeals affirmed his
14
convictions and sentence. State v. Goines (Sept. 23, 1993), Franklin App.
15
No. 93AP-654, unreported.
16

Appellant then filed with the court of appeals a motion for a delayed
17
appeal or, in the alternative, motion for delayed reconsideration. The appeals
18
court treated this as an application to reopen pursuant to App.R. 26(B),
19
because, inter alia, the appellant had argued that his appellate counsel was

1
ineffective. The court of appeals denied the application, finding that
2
appellant had failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel on the
3
record presented. This appeal followed.
4

Larry D. Goines, pro se.
5

Stephen M. Miller, for appellee.
6

Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the
7
following reasons. Like the court of appeals, we disregard appellant's
8
propositions of law that are not related to the claim of ineffective assistance
9
of appellate counsel.
10

Appellant's fourth proposition of law asserts ineffective assistance of
11
appellate counsel. The gist of the claim seems to be that appellate counsel
12
was ineffective for not arguing that trial counsel was ineffective because he
13
did not vigorously attack two eyewitnesses' identifications of appellant as the
14
robber and attempt to establish appellant's brother as the robber. Like the
15
court of appeals, we hold that appellant's record fails to establish that trial
16
counsel was ineffective, and, therefore, appellant has failed to demonstrate
17
that the genuine issue required by App.R. 26(B)(5) exists.
18

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

2