State v. Patterson - 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

The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Patterson, Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Patterson (1996), Ohio St.3d .]
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from
judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when
applicant fails to show good cause for failing to file his
application within ninety days after journalization of the
appellate judgment.

(No. 95-2339--Submitted February 20, 1996--Decided April 10,
1996.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-84-328.

In 1984, appellant, Larry Patterson, was convicted of aggravated
murder and sentenced to imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed the
conviction. State v. Patterson (Apr. 26, 1985), Lucas App. No. L-84-328,
unreported, 1985 WL 7109.

In September 1995, Patterson filed with the court of appeals an
application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective
assistance of his appellate counsel. In October 1995, the court of appeals
denied the application, finding that appellant had failed to show good cause

for filing his application more than ten years after the original judgment on
appeal. Appellant appeals the denial to this court.
___________________

Anthony G. Pizza, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Craig T.
Pearson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Larry Patterson, pro se.
___________________

Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the
reason stated in its decision.

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK,
JJ., concur.

WRIGHT, J., not particpating.