State v. McCleskey - 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. McCleskey, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. McCleskey (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 state sufficient reasons for failure to file the
7
motion within ninety days from journalization of the court of
8
appeals' decision affirming the conviction, as required by
9
App.R. 26(B).
10
(No. 96-579--Submitted May 7, 1996--Decided June 19, 1996.)
11 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No.
12 14351.
13
Appellant, George B. McCleskey, was convicted of rape, felonious
14 sexual penetration, gross sexual imposition, and corruption of a minor.
15 Thereafter, appellant was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.
16 Upon appeal, the convictions were affirmed. State v. McCleskey (Nov. 16,
17 1994), Montgomery App. No. 14351, unreported, 1994 WL 645976.
18
On January 5, 1996, appellant filed an application for reopening
19 before the court of appeals pursuant to App. R. 26(B), alleging ineffective
20 assistance of appellate counsel. The court of appeals overruled the

1 application on the grounds that appellant did not state sufficient reasons
2 why the application was not made within ninety days of the court's
3 November 1994 judgment entry. This appeal followed.
4
______________________________
5
Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and
6 Carley J. Ingram, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
7
George B. McCleskey, pro se.
8
______________________________
9
Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the
10 reason stated in its judgment entry.
11
Judgment affirmed.
12
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK
13 and STRATTON, JJ., concur.
14

2