State v. Mullins - 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. Mullins, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. Mullins (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
issue was reviewed in applicant's direct appeal and found to
7
be without merit.
8
(No. 96-316--Submitted May 21, 1996--Decided July 24, 1996.)
9 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No.
10 89CA27.
11
Appellant, Herbert E. Mullins, was convicted in August 1989 on
12 charges of felonious assault and carrying a concealed weapon. Appellant
13 was thereafter sentenced to an indefinite term of imprisonment. Upon
14 appeal, the convictions were affirmed. State v. Mullins (Jan. 9, 1991),
15 Pickaway App. No. 89CA27, unreported.
16
On September 25, 1995, appellant filed an application for reopening
17 his appeal before the court of appeals pursuant to App.R. 26(B), alleging
18 ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Appellant asserted that appellate
19 counsel failed to raise specific instances of trial counsel's ineffectiveness.

1 However, the court of appeals denied the application on several grounds,
2 including its finding that the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel
3 was reviewed in appellant's direct appeal and was found to be without
4 merit. Therefore, the court of appeals held its prior decision to be res
5 judicata on the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court of
6 appeals then reviewed the merits of appellant's claim of ineffective
7 assistance of appellate counsel, and denied the claim under the tests
8 established in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct.
9 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, and State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538
10 N.E.2d 373. Appellant appeals that denial to this court.
11
Alan F. Sedlak, Pickaway County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for
12 appellee.
13
Ralph S. Silvestri, Jr., for appellant.
14
Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the
15 reasons stated in its decision and judgment entry.
16
Judgment affirmed.
17
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK
18 and STRATTON, JJ., concur.

2