State v. Pierce - 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

The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Pierce, Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Pierce (1996), _____ 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 establish good cause for failure to file the
motion within ninety days after journalization of the court of
appeals' decision affirming the conviction, as required by
App.R. 26(B).

(No. 95-1830--Submitted October 24, 1995--Decided February 7,
1996.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lake County, No. 89-L-14-170.

In 1989, appellant, Sherman Pierce, was convicted of kidnapping,
rape, and felonious sexual penetration. His convictions were affirmed on
appeal. State v. Pierce (Dec. 28, 1990), Lake App. No. 89-L-14-170,
unreported, 1990 WL 222991. In 1995, he filed an application in the court
of appeals to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(b), alleging ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel. He alleged as good cause for not filing his
application within ninety days of journalization of the judgment sought to
be reopened, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(B), that App.R. 26(B) was not

enacted until three years after his appeal was journalized, that "his brother
retained counsel on his behalf," that he had difficulty in obtaining access to
the record, and that he lacked legal experience. The court of appeals did not
find good cause for the untimely filing and denied the application to reopen,
citing, inter alia, State v. Reddick (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 90-91, 647
N.E.2d 784, 786 ("applicant *** may not simply rely on the fact that App.R.
26[B] did not exist within the ninety days following journalization" [since
other procedures were previously available], and "[l]ack of effort or
imagination, and ignorance of the law, *** do not automatically establish
good cause ***"), and State v. Franklin (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 372, 650
N.E.2d 447. Appellant appealed the denial to this court.

Charles Coulson, Lake County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ariana E.
Tarighati, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Sherman Pierce, pro se.

Per Curiam. The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the
reasons stated in its opinion.
Judgment affirmed.

2