State v. Voorhies - 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. Voorhies, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. Voorhies (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 it
6
contains bare allegations that fail to satisfy requirements of
7
App.R. 26(B)(2)(d).
8
(No. 96-460--Submitted June 4, 1996--Decided July 24, 1996.)
9
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Guernsey County, No. 94-CA-
10 8.
11
On January 28, 1994, appellant, Robert Voorhies, was convicted of
12 one count of murder with a firearm specification, and one count of
13 attempted murder. Appellant was thereafter sentenced to a term of
14 imprisonment. Upon appeal, the convictions were affirmed. State v.
15 Voorhies (June 14, 1995), Guernsey App. No. 94-CA-8, unreported, 1995
16 WL 495820.
17
Appellant filed an application for reopening on September 5, 1995
18 before the court of appeals pursuant to App. R. 26(B), alleging ineffective
19 assistance of appellate counsel. In a judgment entry dated September 28,

1 1995, appellant's application was denied, but no reason for the denial was
2 given. On December 19, 1995, appellant's appeal to this court was
3 dismissed sua sponte for failure to prosecute with requisite diligence. State
4 v. Voorhies (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1480, 657 N.E.2d 1374.
5
Upon applicant's motion, the court of appeals issued another
6 judgment entry on February 12, 1996 denying appellant's application filed
7 pursuant to App. R. 26(B). The court of appeals held that appellant's
8 application for reopening contained bare allegations that failed to satisfy the
9 requirements of App. R 26(B)(2)(d), and, therefore, the court again denied
10 appellant's application. Appellant appeals that denial to this court.
11 _______________________________________
12
C. Keith Plummer, Guernsey County Prosecuting Attorney, and
13 Josephine E. Hayes, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
14
Robert Voorhies, pro se.
15 _______________________________________
16 Per
Curiam. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the
17 reasons stated in its judgment entry.
18
Judgment affirmed.

2