State v. Mingo - 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. Mingo, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. Mingo (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 good cause for failure to file the
7
motion within ninety days from journalization of the appellate
8
judgment, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).
9
(No. 95-1780--Submitted December 12, 1995--Decided February 14,
10 1996.)
11 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-
12 930235.
13
Appellant, James H. Mingo, was convicted of two counts of
14 aggravated burglary, with specifications, and two counts of theft, also with
15 accompanying specifications, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The
16 court of appeals affirmed. State v. Mingo (Mar. 16, 1994), Hamilton App.
17 No. C-930235, unreported, 1994 WL 79588.
18
In June 1995, appellant filed with the court of appeals an application
19 to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of
20 appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application, finding that

1 appellant had failed to establish good cause for not filing the application to
2 reopen within ninety days after the journalization of the appellate judgment,
3 as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).
4
Appellant appeals the denial to this court.
5
____________________________
6
Joeseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and
7 Ronald W. Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
8
James H. Mingo, pro se.
9
_____________________________
10 Per
Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the
11 reason stated in its entry.
12

Judgment affirmed.
13
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER
14 and COOK, JJ., concur.
15