State v. Carpenter - 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. Carpenter, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. Carpenter (1996),_____ Ohio St. 3d _____.]
3 Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from
4
judgment and convictions based on claim of ineffective
5
assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when
6
applicant fails to establish good cause for failing to file within
7
ninety days after journalization of the court of appeals'
8
decision affirming the convictions, as required by App.R.
9
26(B).
10
(No. 95-1129--Submitted October 24, 1995--Decided January 31,
11 1996.)
12 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 90AP-
13 803.
14
Appellant, Robert Carpenter, was convicted of aggravated murder and
15 aggravated robbery and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment
16 of thirty years to life and ten to twenty years, respectively. He appealed,
17 and his convictions were affirmed. State v. Carpenter (Mar. 12, 1991),
18 Franklin App. No. 90AP-803, unreported.

1
In 1994, appellant filed an application to reopen his direct appeal
2 under App.R. 26(B), claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
3 As good cause for failing to file within ninety days of journalization of the
4 judgment sought to be reopened, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b),
5 appellant stated that he was unaware he could raise an assignment of error
6 related to sufficiency of the evidence. The court of appeals found that this
7 reason did not constitute good cause, and appellant appealed its decision to
8 this court.
9
Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L.
10 Taylor, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
11
Dennis C. Belli, for appellant.
12
Per Curiam. The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on
13 authority of State v. Reddick (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 647 N.E.2d 784.
14
Judgment affirmed.
15
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER
16 and COOK, JJ., concur.
17

2