State v. Cook - 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. Cook, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. Cook (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.
95-1762--Submitted
December
5, 1995--Decided February 14,
10 1996.)
11 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-
12 900676.
13
Appellant, Derrick Cook, was convicted of aggravated murder,
14 aggravated robbery and kidnapping, and sentenced to death in 1990. The
15 court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. State v. Cook (Apr.
16 8, 1992), Hamilton App. No. C-900676, unreported, 1992 WL 74199. On
17 direct appeal as of right, we also affirmed. State v. Cook (1992), 65 Ohio
18 St.3d 516, 605 N.E.2d 70. Subsequently, Cook's petitions for post-
19 conviction relief were dismissed, and the judgment of dismissal was

1 affirmed by the court of appeals. State v. Cook (Dec. 29, 1995), Hamilton
2 App. No. C-950090, unreported.
3
It is undisputed that in April 1995, Cook filed with the court of
4 appeals an application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B) and State v.
5 Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, alleging ineffective
6 assistance of his appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the
7 application, finding that appellant had failed to establish good cause for not
8 filing the application to reopen within ninety days from the journalization of
9 the appellate judgment, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).
10
__________________________
11
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and
12 Christian J. Schaefer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
13
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and John B. Heasley,
14 Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
15
__________________________
16
Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the
17 reasons stated in its opinion.
18

Judgment affirmed.