Case Title: State v. Kinney

Citation: 1995-Ohio-3

Docket Number: 19950523

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-08-09T00:00:00Z

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. Kinney, Appellant.                               
[Cite as State v. Kinney (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 appellate judgment as required by                     
     App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).                                                         
     (No. 95-523 -- Submitted May 23, 1995 -- Decided August 9,                  
1995.)                                                                           
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No.                   
C-73373.                                                                         
     Appellant, Jack Kinney, was convicted of murder in the                      
first degree and the crimes of shooting to kill and to wound.                    
The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences.                     
State v. Kinney (May 20, 1974), Hamilton App. No. C-73373,                       
unreported.  On November 17, 1994, Kinney filed with the court                   
of appeals an application to reopen his appeal under App. R.                     
26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of his appellate                          
counsel.  The court of appeals denied the application due to                     
Kinney's failure to show good cause for filing his application                   
more than ninety days after the court's judgment was                             
journalized, as required by App. R. 26(B)(2)(b).  Appellant                      
appeals the denial to this court.                                                
                                                                                 
     Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney,                     
and Phillip R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for                     
appellee.                                                                        
     Jack Kinney, pro se.                                                        
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  We affirm the decision of the court of                         
appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion.                                   
                                  Judgment affirmed.                             
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney,                        
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.