Case Title: State v. Green

Citation: 1996-Ohio-8

Docket Number: 19951451

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Green, Appellant. 
1 
[Cite as State v. Green (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 
2 
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from 
3 
judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective 
4 
assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when no 
5 
colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel 
6 
shown. 
7 
 
(No. 95-1451--Submitted November 7, 1995--Decided January 10, 
8 
1996.) 
9 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 
10 
14371. 
11 
 
Appellant, Grady G. Green II, was convicted of felonious assault, 
12 
aggravated burglary, and two firearm specifications.  He was sentenced to 
13 
seven to twenty-five years on the aggravated burglary count and seven to 
14 
fifteen years on the felonious assault count.  These sentences were to be 
15 
served concurrently.  He was also sentenced to two concurrent three-year 
16 
sentences on the firearm specifications, to run consecutively to the 
17 
aggravated burglary and felonious assault sentences.  The court of appeals 
18 
 
2
affirmed the convictions and sentences.  State v. Green (Sept. 23, 1994), 
1 
Montgomery App. No. 14371, unreported, 1994 WL 514948. 
2 
 
On January 5, 1995, appellant filed an application to reopen his 
3 
appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate 
4 
counsel for failing to argue that (1) appellant’s convictions for felonious 
5 
assault and aggravated burglary should have been merged under R.C. 
6 
2941.25(A); (2) appellant should have been convicted of only one firearm 
7 
specification under R.C. 2929.71(B); (3) admission of appellant’s prior bad 
8 
acts constituted reversible error; and (4) the court erred by admitting a 
9 
statement by the victim.  The court of appeals denied the application, 
10 
holding that (1) appellant’s felonious assault and aggravated burglary 
11 
offenses were committed separately; (2) although it agreed that appellant 
12 
should have been convicted of only one firearm specification, the error was 
13 
harmless because the two firearm specifications were ordered to be served 
14 
concurrently; (3) the evidence of prior bad acts was admissible; and (4) not 
15 
challenging the victim’s statement may have been a strategic choice.  This 
16 
appeal followed. 
17 
 
3
 
Mathias H. Heck, Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
1 
Carley J. Ingram, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
2 
 
Grady G. Green II, pro se. 
3 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the 
4 
reasons stated in its opinion. 
5 
Judgment affirmed. 
6 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
7 
and COOK, JJ., concur. 
8 
 
9