State v. Jones - 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. Jones, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. Jones (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 demonstrate a colorable claim of ineffective
7
assistance of counsel.
8
(No. 96-195--Submitted May 7, 1996--Decided August 7, 1996.)
9
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 89AP-
10 424.
11
Appellant, Raymond E. Jones, was convicted of aggravated robbery
12 and robbery, with a gun specification. The trial court merged the offenses
13 and sentenced Jones to prison. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction
14 and sentence. State v. Jones (Mar. 13, 1990), Franklin App. No. 89AP-424,
15 unreported, 1990 WL 26126, appeal dismissed (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 703,
16 558 N.E.2d 57.
17
In mid-1995, Jones filed with the court of appeals an application to
18 reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of his
19 appellate counsel. The court of appeals held that Jones had "failed to

1 demonstrate a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel" and
2 denied his application for reopening. Jones now appeals that denial to this
3 court.
4
____________________________________
5
Raymond E. Jones, pro se.
6
_____________________________________
7
Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the
8 reasons stated in its decision.1
9

Judgment affirmed.
10
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK
11 and STRATTON, JJ., concur.
12

1 Appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

2