Case Title: State v. Hill

Citation: 1997-Ohio-293

Docket Number: 19962370

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-04-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Hill, Appellant. 
1 
[Cite as State v. Hill (1997), ______ 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 
5 
applicant fails to show good cause for failing to file his 
6 
application within ninety days after journalization of the 
7 
appellate judgment. 
8 
 
(No. 96-2370--Submitted March 4, 1997--Decided April 16, 1997.)
9 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-
10 
920497. 
11 
 
Appellant, Jeffrey D. Hill, was convicted of the aggravated murder of 
12 
his mother and sentenced to death.  He was also sentenced to prison terms 
13 
for several associated felonies.  The court of appeals affirmed the 
14 
convictions and sentence.   State v. Hill (Dec. 22, 1993), Hamilton App. No. 
15 
C-920497, unreported, 1993 WL538902.  On direct appeal as of right, we 
16 
also affirmed.  State v. Hill (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 433, 653 N.E.2d 271, 
17 
certiorari denied Hill v. Ohio (1996), 516 U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 788, 133 
18 
L.Ed.2d 738.  Subsequently, we issued a stay of execution to allow Hill to 
19 
 
2
file a petition for post-conviction relief.  State v. Hill (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 
1 
1428, 667 N.E.2d 412. 
2 
 
On or about July 2, 1996, Hill filed an application for reopening with 
3 
the court of appeals pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v. Murnahan 
4 
(1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, alleging ineffective assistance 
5 
of appellate counsel before that court.  The court of appeals noted that Hill’s 
6 
application was untimely under App.R. 26(B) for not having been filed 
7 
within ninety days from the journalization of the decision of the court of 
8 
appeals. 
9 
 
Hill argued before the court of appeals that good cause existed for the 
10 
late filing because one attorney, who represented him initially before the 
11 
court of appeals on his direct appeal, also represented him in his direct 
12 
appeal to the Supreme Court.  The court of appeals, however, noted that 
13 
another attorney who also represented Hill before the Supreme Court on 
14 
direct appeal had not represented him before the court of appeals.  Further, 
15 
Hill had already raised in his appeal to the Supreme Court his claim of 
16 
alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel before the court of 
17 
appeals.  Thus, the court of appeals found no good cause for the late filing 
18 
 
3
and denied Hill’s application for reopening the appeal.  Hill now appeals 
1 
that decision to this court. 
2 
____________________________ 
3 
 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip 
4 
R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
5 
 
Gary W. Crim, for appellant. 
6 
____________________________ 
7 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the 
8 
reasons stated in its journal entry, which is appended hereto. 
9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
10 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK 
11 
and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
12 
APPENDIX 
13 
STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JEFFREY D. HILL, Defendant-
14 
Appellant. 
15 
No. C-920497 
16 
ENTRY DENYING APPLICATION FOR REOPENING. 
17 
 
4
 
This cause came on to be considered upon the application of 
1 
defendant-appellant Jeffrey D. Hill for reopening the appeal wherein 
2 
judgment was entered by this court in State v. Hill (Dec. 22, 1993), 
3 
Hamilton App. No. C-920497, unreported, and the memoranda filed by the 
4 
parties in connection therewith. 
5 
 
App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires a showing of good cause for filing an 
6 
application to reopen more than ninety days after journalization of the 
7 
appellate judgment.  Appellant argues that there is good cause for filing this 
8 
application approximately two and one-half years after this court’s judgment 
9 
was journalized because the same attorney participated in representing 
10 
appellant in the direct appeals of his capital case to this court and to the 
11 
Ohio Supreme Court (and, apparently, in subsequent motions).  
12 
 
In State v. Williams (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 454, 455, 659 N.E.2d 
13 
1253, 1253, the court held that: 
14 
 
“[I]ssues of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must be raised 
15 
at the first opportunity to do so.  Thus, in capital cases in which the death 
16 
penalty has been imposed for offenses committed before January 1, 1995, 
17 
such issues must be raised in the first appeal as of right in this court, unless, 
18 
 
5
because of unusual circumstances, applying the doctrine of res judicata 
1 
would be unjust.  See State v. Murnahan [(1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 66, 584 
2 
N.E.2d 1204, 1209].” 
3 
 
Considering that appellant also received new counsel on appeal to the 
4 
Ohio Supreme Court, that such counsel did raise in the Supreme Court the 
5 
issue of ineffective assistance of counsel before the Court of Appeals, and 
6 
that many of the issues appellant now attempts to raise have already been 
7 
addressed in the Supreme Court’s decision, we find no injustice in applying 
8 
the doctrine of res judicata. 
9 
 
Therefore, appellant’s application for reopening is denied. 
10