Case Title: State v. Bryant-Bey

Citation: 2002-Ohio-5450

Docket Number: 20012214

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-10-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State v. Bryant-Bey, 97 Ohio St.3d 87, 2002-Ohio-5450.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BRYANT-BEY, A.K.A. BEY, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Bryant-Bey, 97 Ohio St.3d 87, 2002-Ohio-5450.] 
Appellate procedure — Application to reopen appeal from judgment of 
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel 
— Court of appeals’ denial of application affirmed, when — Application 
denied when applicant fails to raise a genuine issue as to whether he was 
deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal as required by 
App.R. 26(B)(5). 
(No. 2001-2214 — Submitted July 24, 2002 — Decided October 23, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-94-003. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Appellant, Gregory Bryant-Bey, also known as Gregory Bey, was 
convicted of the aggravated murder and the aggravated robbery of Dale 
Pinkelman and was sentenced to death.  The court of appeals affirmed the 
conviction and death sentence.  State v. Bey (Sept. 19, 1997), Lucas App. No. L-
94-003, 1997 WL 586693.  We also affirmed his conviction and death sentence.  
State v. Bey (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 487, 709 N.E.2d 484, certiorari denied (1999), 
528 U.S. 1049, 120 S.Ct. 587, 145 L.Ed.2d 488. 
{¶2} 
Subsequently, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s 
decision to deny Bryant-Bey’s petition for postconviction relief.  State v. Bryant-
Bey (June 16, 2000), Lucas App. No. L-97-1425, 2000 WL 770131.  We refused 
to accept Bryant-Bey’s appeal of that decision.  State v. Bryant-Bey (2000), 90 
Ohio St.3d 1440, 736 N.E.2d 902. 
{¶3} 
On October 17, 2001, Bryant-Bey filed an application with the 
court of appeals to reopen his direct appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, alleging ineffective 
assistance of his appellate counsel in the appeal of his murder and robbery 
convictions. 
{¶4} 
Under App.R. 26(B)(5), “[a]n application for reopening shall be 
granted if there is a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the 
effective assistance of counsel on appeal.”  The court of appeals denied Bryant-
Bey’s application to reopen his appeal because Bryant-Bey had not shown good 
cause for filing the application more than 90 days after journalization of the 
appellate judgment, as is required by App.R. 26(B)(1).  The cause is now before 
this court upon an appeal as of right. 
{¶5} 
The two-pronged analysis found in Strickland v. Washington 
(1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, is the appropriate 
standard by which to assess whether Bryant-Bey has raised a “genuine issue” as 
to the ineffectiveness of appellate counsel in his request to reopen under App.R. 
26(B)(5).  State v. Sheppard (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 329, 330, 744 N.E.2d 770; 
State v. Spivey (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 24, 25, 701 N.E.2d 696; State v. Reed 
(1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 534, 534-535, 660 N.E.2d 456. 
{¶6} 
“To show ineffective assistance, [defendant] must prove that his 
counsel were deficient for failing to raise the issues he now presents and that there 
was a reasonable probability of success had he presented those claims on appeal.”  
Sheppard, 91 Ohio St.3d at 330, 744 N.E.2d 770, citing State v. Bradley (1989), 
42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373, paragraph three of the syllabus.  Moreover, to 
justify reopening his appeal, Bryant-Bey “bears the burden of establishing that 
there was a ‘genuine issue’ as to whether he has a ‘colorable claim’ of ineffective 
assistance of counsel on appeal.”  Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d at 25, 701 N.E.2d 696. 
{¶7} 
We 
have 
reviewed 
Bryant-Bey’s 
assertions 
of 
deficient 
performance by appellate counsel and find that Bryant-Bey has failed to raise “a 
January Term, 2002 
3 
genuine issue as to whether [he] was deprived of the effective assistance of 
counsel on appeal” as required by App.R. 26(B)(5). 
{¶8} 
In discussing his second proposition of law, Bryant-Bey argues 
that he had good cause for the late filing of his application for reconsideration 
under App.R. 26(B).  Our disposition of Bryant-Bey’s appeal on the merits 
negates any need to decide that issue.  Accordingly, the judgment of the court of 
appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Craig T. Pearson, 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
Kerger & Kerger and Richard M. Kerger; and Ann M. Baronas, for 
appellant. 
__________________