State v. Pearce - 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. Pearce, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. Pearce (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 allege or demonstrate any specific
7
deficiencies in the performance of appellate counsel.
8
(No. 95-1583--Submitted December 5, 1995--Decided February 14,
9 1996.)
10 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 92AP-
11 1761.
12
Appellant, James R. Pearce, was convicted of kidnapping, gross
13 sexual imposition and attempted gross sexual imposition, and sentenced to
14 terms of imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and
15 sentence. State v. Pearce (May 6, 1993), Franklin App. No. 92AP-1761,
16 unreported, 1993 WL 150501, appeal dismissed, 67 Ohio St.3d 1479, 620
17 N.E.2d 852.
18
Subsequently, appellant filed an application for delayed
19 reconsideration pursuant to App.R. 26 and 14(B). The court of appeals

1 denied the application, finding that appellant failed "to allege or
2 demonstrate any specific deficiencies in the performance of appellate
3 counsel." Appellant appeals that denial to this court.
4
James R. Pearce, pro se.
5
Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the
6 reason stated in its memorandum decision.
7
Judgment
affirmed.
8
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER
9 and COOK, JJ., concur.
10