Case Title: State v. Carroll

Citation: 1995-Ohio-305

Docket Number: 19942437

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-04-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     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. Carroll, Appellant.                              
[Cite as State v. Carroll (1995),        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                       
applicant fails to establish good cause for failing to file his                  
application within ninety days after journalization of the                       
court of appeals' decision affirming the conviction, as                          
required by App.R. 26(B).                                                        
     (No. 94-2437--Submitted February 7, 1995 -- Decided April                   
26, 1995.)                                                                       
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.                   
62747.                                                                           
     According to the court of appeals' opinion, appellant,                      
Daniel Carroll, was convicted of cocaine possession with a                       
previous conviction for a drug offense, carrying a concealed                     
weapon with a violence specification, and having a weapon while                  
under disability with violence and firearm specifications.  He                   
appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the convictions.                     
State v. Carroll (June 10, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 62747,                       
unreported.  It is agreed that on August 25, 1994, he filed an                   
application to reopen his appeal pursuant to App. R. 26 (B),                     
alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.  The                       
court of appeals denied the application, holding that appellant                  
failed to establish good cause for filing the application more                   
than ninety days after the judgment affirming his conviction on                  
appeal was journalized, as required by App. R. 26 (B) (1) and                    
(2) (b).  The court also found that appellant's claims failed                    
to establish a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of                      
appellate counsel.  Appellant now appeals to this court.                         
                                                                                 
     Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting                          
Attorney, and John W. Monroe, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,                    
for appellee.                                                                    
     Daniel Carroll, pro se.                                                     
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  The judgment of the court of appeals is                        
affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion.                                  
                                       Judgment affirmed.                        
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney,                        
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.