Case Title: State v. Spaulding

Citation: 1994-Ohio-42

Docket Number: 19941474

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1994-12-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
                                                                                 
              **** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING ****                               
                                                                                 
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Spaulding, Appellant.                            
[Cite as State v. Spaulding (1994),      Ohio St.3d      .]                      
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from                     
     judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective                       
     assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when                  
     filed more than ninety days after effective date of App.R.                  
     26(B).                                                                      
     (No. 94-1474 -- Submitted October 24, 1994 -- Decided                       
December 20, 1994.)                                                              
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No.                     
14408.                                                                           
     Appellant, John Spaulding, was convicted of aggravated                      
robbery in 1989. He appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed                  
the conviction.  State v. Spaulding (June 27, 1990), Summit                      
App. No. 14408, unreported. In 1994, he applied to the court of                  
appeals under App. R. 26(B) to reopen the appeal from the                        
judgment of conviction, alleging ineffective assistance of                       
appellate counsel.  The court of appeals denied the application                  
on the basis that it was filed more than ninety days after the                   
July 1, 1993 effective date of App. R. 26(B) and appellant had                   
not shown good cause for the delay.  Appellant appeals the                       
denial to this court.                                                            
                                                                                 
     Lynn C. Slaby, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and                      
William D. Wellemeyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for                       
appellee.                                                                        
     John Spaulding, pro se.                                                     
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  The decision of the court of appeals is                        
affirmed for the reasons stated therein.                                         
                                     Judgment affirmed.                          
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer,                    
JJ., cocnur.                                                                     
     A.W. Sweeney and Wright, JJ., dissent.