State v. Coleman - 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. Coleman, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. Coleman (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 allege any substantive grounds for relief
7
indicating that appellate counsel was ineffective.
8
(No. 95-2492 -- Submitted March 5, 1996 -- Decided May 15, 1996.)
9 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No.
10 94APA10-1558.
11
In September 1994, appellant, Byron S. Coleman, was convicted of
12 aggravated robbery and two counts of having a weapon under a disability
13 with specifications. Appellant was thereafter sentenced to a term of
14 imprisonment. Upon appeal, the convictions were affirmed. State v.
15 Coleman (May 30, 1995), Franklin App. No. 94APA10-1558, unreported.
16 Appellant's appeal to this court was dismissed. State v. Coleman (1995),
17 case No. 95-1389.
18 Subsequently,
appellant filed an application for reopening before the
19 court of appeals pursuant to App. R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance

1 of appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application, finding
2 that appellant did not allege any substantive grounds for relief indicating
3 that appellate counsel was ineffective. Appellant appeals that denial to this
4 court.
5
_______________
6
Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Katherine
7 Press, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
8
Byron S. Coleman, pro se.
9
________________
10
Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the
11 reasons stated in its memorandum decision.
12

Judgment affirmed.
13
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK,
14 JJ., concur.
15
WRIGHT, J., not participating.

2