Case Title: State v. White

Citation: 1996-Ohio-17

Docket Number: 19951746

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. White, Appellant. 
[Cite as State v. White (1996), ____ 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 no 
genuine issue whether applicant was prejudiced by any 
alleged deficient performance of his appellate counsel exists. 
 
(No. 95-1746--Submitted November 7, 1995--Decided January 31, 
1996.) 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-
930711. 
 
Appellant, Carey White, was convicted of aggravated murder with a 
firearm specification, two counts of aggravated robbery with firearm 
specifications, and a specification of prior aggravated murder for each of 
these offenses.  He was sentenced to from thirty years to life imprisonment.  
He appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the convictions.  State v. 
White (Jan. 18, 1995), Hamilton App. No. C-930711, unreported.  
Subsequently, he filed an application for delayed reconsideration under 
State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204.  The court 
 
2
of appeals “reviewed appellant’s claims and the record *** [and found] no 
genuine issue as to whether appellant was prejudiced by any alleged 
deficient performance by his appellate counsel.”  Appellant appeals from 
this decision. 
 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Tina I. 
Ernst, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
Carey White, pro se. 
 
Per Curiam.  We cannot tell from the limited record what claims 
appellant raised in the court of appeals.  The gist of the issue raised in this 
court seems to be that appellate counsel was ineffective for failure to pursue 
a claim that a witness at trial may have committed perjury because she was 
offered immunity from prosecution for her testimony.  We agree with the 
court of appeals that this claim is too speculative to raise a genuine issue. 
 
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
and COOK, JJ., concur.