State v. Hawkins - 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. Hawkins, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. Hawkins (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 show good cause for filing application more
7
than ninety days from journalization of the appellate judgment,
8
as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).
9
(No. 95-1813--Submitted January 9, 1996--Decided February 14,
10 1996.)
11 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, Nos. C-
12 900092 and C-910017.)
13
Appellant, Shawn L. Hawkins, was convicted of two 1989 aggravated
14 murders and two counts of aggravated robbery and sentenced to death. The
15 court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. State v. Hawkins
16 (Dec. 18, 1991), Hamilton App. Nos. C-900092 and C-910017, unreported,
17 1991 WL 270633. On direct appeal as of right, we also affirmed. State v.
18 Hawkins (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 339, 612 N.E.2d 1227.
19
In April 1994, Hawkins filed with the court of appeals an application
20 to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of

1 his appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application, finding
2 that Hawkins had "failed to show good cause for filing his application more
3 than ninety days after this Court's decision was journalized [December 18,
4 1991], as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b)."
5
Hawkins appeals the court of appeals' denial of his petition. Hawkins
6 also asks for reversal because he claims that the court of appeals' decision
7 to deny his application for reopening was decided by only a single judge of
8 that court.
9
_______________________________
10
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and L.
11 Susan Laker, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
12
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Laurence E. Komp, Kevin
13 L. Fahey and Cynthia A. Yost, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.
14
_____________________________________
15
Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the
16 reason stated in its entry. Further, we reject Hawkins' unsupported
17 assumption that fewer than three judges of the court of appeals decided to
18 deny his application for reopening. The fact that only the presiding judge of

1 the court of appeals signed the entry does not impeach the entry. App.R.
2 22(A) requires only "a journal entry signed by a judge of the court."
3 Hawkins has not contradicted the presumption of regularity accorded all
4 judicial proceedings. State v. Sweet (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 375, 650 N.E.2d
5 450; Coleman v. McGettrick (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 177, 180, 31 O.O.2d 326,
6 328, 207 N.E.2d 552, 554.
7

Judgment
affirmed.
8
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK,
9 JJ., concur.
10
WRIGHT, J., dissents.
11