State v. Paris - 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. Paris, Appellant.
2
[Cite as State v. Paris (1996), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
3
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from judgment
4
and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate
5
counsel -- Application denied when applicant fails to show good
6
cause for failing to file his application within ninety days after
7
journalization of the court of appeals' decision affirming the
8
conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B).
9

(No. 95-2425 -- Submitted June 25, 1996 -- Decided August 7, 1996.)
10
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Clark County, No. 2836.
11

In June 1991, appellant, David Paris, was convicted of felonious assault and
12
sentenced to prison. In March 1992, the court of appeals affirmed the conviction
13
and sentence. State v. Paris (Mar. 26, 1992), Clark App. No. 2836, unreported,
14
1992 WL 63387.
15

It is undisputed that Paris filed an application in August 1995 with the court
16
of appeals to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance
17
of appellate counsel. In October 1995, the court of appeals denied appellant's
18
motion to reopen because Paris failed to file his application within ninety days of
19
the journalization of the appellate judgment, as required by App.R. 26 (B).

1
Further, the court found that Paris "has failed to show good cause for his delay in
2
filing his application to reopen his appeal."
3

Appellant appeals the denial to this court.
4
__________________________________
5

Stephen A. Schumaker, Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Douglas M.
6
Rastatter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
7

David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, David Klaus and Angela Wilson
8
Miller, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.
9
__________________________________
10

Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons
11
stated in its decision. See State v. White (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 91, 641 N.E.2d
12
787.
13
Judgment affirmed.
14

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
15
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
16

2