State v. Zych - 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. Zych, Appellant.
2 [Cite as State v. Zych (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 no
6
genuine issue as to whether applicant was deprived of the
7
effective assistance of counsel on appeal is present.
8
(No. 95-1959--Submitted January 9, 1996--Decided February 21,
9 1996.)
10 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Clermont County, No. CA92-
11 11-105.
12
Appellant, Jeffrey A. Zych, was convicted of two counts of felonious
13 assault committed in September 1991 and sentenced to prison. The court of
14 appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. State v. Zych (Oct. 4, 1993),
15 Clermont App. No. CA92-11-105, unreported, 1993 WL 390510, appeal
16 dismissed (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 1449, 626 N.E.2d 690.
17
In January 1994, the court of appeals received appellant's application
18 to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of
19 his appellate counsel. By entry, the court of appeals denied the application,

1 finding that "there is no genuine issue as to whether appellant was deprived
2 of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal[.]"
3
Appellant appeals the denial to this court.
4
__________________________________
5
Donald W. White, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and David
6 H. Hoffmann, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
7
Jeffrey A. Zych, pro se.
8
__________________________________
9
Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the
10 reasons stated in its entry.
11

Judgment affirmed.
12
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER
13 and COOK, JJ., concur.
14

2