State v. Simpson - 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. Simpson, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. Simpson (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 show good cause for failure to file the motion
7
within ninety days from journalization of the court of appeals'
8
decision affirming the conviction, as required by App.R.
9
26(B)(2)(b).
10
(No. 96-587 -- Submitted May 21, 1996 -- Decided July 24, 1996.)
11
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-
12 941049.
13
On November 30, 1994, appellant, Marcus Simpson, was convicted of
14 aggravated trafficking, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Upon
15 appeal, the conviction was affirmed. State v. Simpson (Sept. 22, 1995),
16 Hamilton App. No. C-941049, unreported. Appellant's appeal to this court
17 was dismissed. State v. Simpson (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 1499, 659 N.E.2d
18 314.
19
In December 1995, appellant filed an application for reopening before
20 the court of appeals pursuant to App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective

1 assistance of appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the motion as
2 untimely without good cause shown as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).
3 This appeal followed.
4
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and
5 Christian J. Schaefer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
6
Marcus Simpson, pro se.
7
Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the
8 reasons stated in its judgment entry.
9
Judgment affirmed.
10
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK
11 and STRATTON, JJ., concur.
12

2