Case Title: State v. Everette

Citation: 1996-Ohio-56

Docket Number: 19951557

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

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

Document:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Everette, Appellant. 
1 
[Cite as State v. Everette (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 
2 
Appellate procedure -- App.R. 26(B) -- Application for reopening 
3 
appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of 
4 
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel -- Application 
5 
denied when not timely filed. 
6 
 
(No. 95-1557--Submitted October 24, 1995--Decided January 10, 
7 
1996.) 
8 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 
9 
13440. 
10 
 
Appellant, Thomas E. Everette, Jr., was convicted of felonious assault 
11 
and aggravated robbery, each with a gun specification.  He was sentenced 
12 
accordingly.  The court of appeals affirmed the convictions.  State v. 
13 
Everette (Aug. 6, 1993), Montgomery App. No. 13440, unreported. 
14 
 
On May 31, 1995, appellant filed with the court of appeals an 
15 
application titled, “Application for Reconsideration/Reopening Pursuant to 
16 
Rule 26 of Appellate Procedure.”  Since the appellant argued that his 
17 
appellate counsel was ineffective and attempted to offer a good-cause 
18 
reason for his untimely filing, the court of appeals considered his 
19 
 
2
application as one for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B).  In the 
1 
application, appellant stated as good cause for failure to file the application 
2 
within ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment sought to 
3 
be reopened, as required by App.R. 26(B)(1), that he had “great difficulties” 
4 
in finding out that his conviction had been affirmed on appeal and “great 
5 
difficulties” in obtaining a trial transcript.  The court of appeals found that 
6 
appellant had filed a pro se appeal to this court on October 22, 1993, 
7 
showing that he did have knowledge of the August 6, 1993 judgment 
8 
affirming his conviction, and that he failed to substantiate his claim of 
9 
difficulty in obtaining a transcript.  It, therefore, denied the application to 
10 
reopen as untimely.  This appeal followed. 
11 
 
Thomas E. Everette, Jr., pro se. 
12 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the 
13 
reasons stated in its judgment entry. 
14 
Judgment affirmed. 
15 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
16 
and COOK, JJ., concur. 
17 
 
18