State v. Hutchinson - 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. Hutchinson, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. Hutchinson (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.]
3 Appellate procedure -- Applications for reopening appeal from
4
judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective
5
assistance of appellate counsel -- Applications denied when
6
none of applicant's claims has merit.
7
(No 95-1969--Submitted January 9, 1996--Decided February 28,
8 1996.)
9 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA
10 13993.
11
Appellant, Rayfield Hutchinson, was convicted of aggravated robbery
12 with a prior aggravated felony specification and sentenced to prison in April
13 1993. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v.
14 Hutchinson (May 10, 1995), Montgomery App. No. CA 13993, unreported,
15 1995 WL 276753, appeal dismissed (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1409, 655
16 N.E.2d 187.
17 Subsequently,
appellant
filed with the court of appeals applications to
18 reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of his
19 appellate counsel. The court of appeals found that none of appellant's

1 claims had merit and denied his requests to reopen his appeal. Appellant
2 appeals that denial to this court.
3
_______________________________________
4
Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and
5 Laura G. Ulrich, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
6
Rayfield Hutchinson, pro se.
7
_________________________________________
8
Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the
9 reasons stated in its opinion.
10
Judgment affirmed.
11
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER
12 and COOK, JJ., concur.
13

2