State v. Whalen - 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. Whalen, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. Whalen (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 after journalization of the court of appeals'
8
decision affirming the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B).
9
(No. 95-2000--Submitted January 23, 1996--Decided Februay 28,
10 1996.)
11
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No C-
12 930367.
13
In April 1993, appellant, David M. Whalen, Jr., was convicted of two
14 counts of aggravated robbery, with firearms specifications, three counts of
15 robbery, with firearms specifications, and one count of theft, and was
16 sentenced to prison. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and
17 sentence. State v. Whalen (Sept. 7, 1994), Hamilton App. No. C-930367,
18 unreported, 1994 WL 481737.
19
The parties agree that in June 1995, appellant filed with the court of
20 appeals an application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging

1 ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied
2 the application, finding that appellant had "failed to show good cause for
3 filing his application more than ninety days after this Court's judgment was
4 journalized, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b)." Appellant appeals that
5 denial to this court.
6
__________________________
7
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald
8 W. Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
9
David M. Whalen, Jr., pro se.
10
___________________________
11
Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the
12 reasons stated in its entry.
13

Judgment affirmed.
14
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER
15 and COOK, JJ., concur.
16

2