State v. Mosley - 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. Mosley, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. Mosley (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's claims are not well taken.
7
(No. 95-2589 -- Submitted February 20, 1996 -- Decided April 17,
8 1996.)
9 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No.
10 94APA12-1707.
11
Appellant, Mark H. Mosley, was convicted of felonious assault on
12 November 9, 1994 and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Upon
13 appeal, the conviction was affirmed. State v. Mosley (July 13, 1995),
14 Franklin App. No. 94APA12-1707, unreported, 1995 WL 422647.
15 Appellant's appeal to this court was later dismissed. State v. Mosley,
16 (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1475, 657 N.E.2d 788.
17
Meanwhile, appellant timely filed an application for reopening before
18 the court of appeals pursuant to App. R.26(B), alleging ineffective
19 assistance of appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application,

1 finding that appellant's claims of ineffective asssistance of counsel were not
2 well taken. Appellant appeals that denial to this court.
3
Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joyce S.
4 Anderson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
5
Mark H. Mosley, pro se.
6
Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the
7 reasons stated in its memorandum decision.
8

Judgment affirmed.
9
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK,
10 JJ., concur.
11
WRIGHT, J., not participating.

2