Case Title: State v. Cook

Citation: 1996-Ohio-26

Docket Number: 19951762

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-02-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Cook, Appellant. 
1 
[Cite as State v. Cook (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 
5 
applicant fails to establish good cause for failure to file the 
6 
motion within ninety days from journalization of the appellate 
7 
judgment, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b). 
8 
 
(No. 95-1762--Submitted December 5, 1995--Decided February 14, 
9 
1996.) 
10 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-
11 
900676. 
12 
 
Appellant, Derrick Cook, was convicted of aggravated murder, 
13 
aggravated robbery and kidnapping, and sentenced to death in 1990.  The 
14 
court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence.  State v. Cook (Apr. 
15 
8, 1992), Hamilton App. No. C-900676, unreported, 1992 WL 74199.  On 
16 
direct appeal as of right, we also affirmed.  State v. Cook (1992), 65 Ohio 
17 
St.3d 516, 605 N.E.2d 70.  Subsequently, Cook’s petitions for post-
18 
conviction relief were dismissed, and the judgment of dismissal was 
19 
affirmed by the court of appeals.  State v. Cook (Dec. 29, 1995), Hamilton 
1 
App. No. C-950090, unreported.  
2 
 
It is undisputed that in April 1995, Cook filed with the court of 
3 
appeals an application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B) and State v. 
4 
Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, alleging ineffective 
5 
assistance of his appellate counsel.  The court of appeals denied the 
6 
application, finding that appellant had failed to establish good cause for not 
7 
filing the application to reopen within ninety days from the journalization of 
8 
the appellate judgment, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b). 
9 
__________________________ 
10 
 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
11 
Christian J. Schaefer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
12 
 
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and John B. Heasley, 
13 
Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. 
14 
__________________________ 
15 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the decision  of the court of appeals for the 
16 
reasons stated in its opinion. 
17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
18 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, 
1 
JJ., concur. 
2 
 
WRIGHT, J., dissents. 
3 
 
4