State v. Green - 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. Green, Appellant.
2
[Cite as State v. Green (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
colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
7
shown.
8

(No. 95-1451--Submitted November 7, 1995--Decided January 10,
9
1996.)
10

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No.
11
14371.
12

Appellant, Grady G. Green II, was convicted of felonious assault,
13
aggravated burglary, and two firearm specifications. He was sentenced to
14
seven to twenty-five years on the aggravated burglary count and seven to
15
fifteen years on the felonious assault count. These sentences were to be
16
served concurrently. He was also sentenced to two concurrent three-year
17
sentences on the firearm specifications, to run consecutively to the
18
aggravated burglary and felonious assault sentences. The court of appeals

1
affirmed the convictions and sentences. State v. Green (Sept. 23, 1994),
2
Montgomery App. No. 14371, unreported, 1994 WL 514948.
3

On January 5, 1995, appellant filed an application to reopen his
4
appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate
5
counsel for failing to argue that (1) appellant's convictions for felonious
6
assault and aggravated burglary should have been merged under R.C.
7
2941.25(A); (2) appellant should have been convicted of only one firearm
8
specification under R.C. 2929.71(B); (3) admission of appellant's prior bad
9
acts constituted reversible error; and (4) the court erred by admitting a
10
statement by the victim. The court of appeals denied the application,
11
holding that (1) appellant's felonious assault and aggravated burglary
12
offenses were committed separately; (2) although it agreed that appellant
13
should have been convicted of only one firearm specification, the error was
14
harmless because the two firearm specifications were ordered to be served
15
concurrently; (3) the evidence of prior bad acts was admissible; and (4) not
16
challenging the victim's statement may have been a strategic choice. This
17
appeal followed.

2

1

Mathias H. Heck, Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and
2
Carley J. Ingram, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
3

Grady G. Green II, pro se.
4

Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the
5
reasons stated in its opinion.
6
Judgment affirmed.
7

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER
8
and COOK, JJ., concur.
9

3