Case Title: State v. Peeples

Citation: 1995-Ohio-30

Docket Number: 19950740

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-12-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Peeples, Appellant. 
1 
[Cite as State v. Peeples (1995), ____ 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 no 
5 
colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel 
6 
stated. 
7 
 
(No. 95-740 -- Submitted July 26, 1995 -- Decided December 6, 
8 
1995.) 
9 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No. 92 CA 
10 
7. 
11 
 
Appellant, Kavin L. Peeples, was convicted of aggravated murder in 
12 
violation of R.C. 2903.01(A) with specifications pursuant to R.C. 2929.04 
13 
(aggravated murder committed while the defendant was an inmate in a 
14 
detention facility).  The Court of Appeals for Pickaway County affirmed the 
15 
judgment of the trial court.  State v. Peeples  (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 34, 
16 
640 N.E.2d 208.   
17 
 
On November 10, 1994, appellant filed an application requesting 
18 
delayed reconsideration.  The court of appeals treated this as an application 
19 
 
2
for reopening pursuant to App. R. 26(B), and found that, although appellant 
1 
had established good cause for not filing the application within the ninety 
2 
days required under App. R. 26(B), he had failed to state a colorable claim 
3 
of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.  Thus, the appellate court 
4 
denied appellant’s application for delayed reconsideration, and this appeal 
5 
followed. 
6 
 
Kavin Peeples, pro se. 
7 
 
Per Curiam.  In his application to reopen, appellant raised five 
8 
separate issues regarding appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness.  Each issue 
9 
involved appellant’s alleged mental incapcity.  However, the court of 
10 
appeals found that “[t]he issue of Peeple’s mental incapacity was previously 
11 
and properly raised on direct appeal.”  Specifically, the court of appeals 
12 
found that appellant’s problem was not his appellate counsel’s performance, 
13 
but the fact that his motion to suppress his confession to the murder was 
14 
denied at trial.  We concur. 
15 
 
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the 
16 
reasons stated in its opinion. 
17 
Judgment affirmed. 
18 
 
3
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
1 
and COOK, JJ., CONCUR. 
2 
 
3