Case Title: State v. Timmons

Citation: 1994-Ohio-52

Docket Number: 19941321

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1994-11-09T00:00:00Z

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. Timmons, Appellant.                              
[Cite as State v. Timmons (1994),       Ohio St.3d    .]                         
Appellate procedure -- App.R. 26(B) -- Application for                           
     reopening appeal from judgment of conviction based on                       
     claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel --                     
     Application denied when none of the issues raised by                        
     appellant demonstrates violations of counsel's essential                    
     duties.                                                                     
     (No. 94-1321 -- Submitted August 17, 1994 -- Decided                        
November 9, 1994.)                                                               
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No.                   
80 CA 26.                                                                        
     Appellant, Wayne A. Timmons, alleges he was convicted of                    
complicity to commit aggravated murder and sentenced to life                     
imprisonment in 1980.  He appealed, and the court of appeals                     
affirmed the conviction by judgment entry of September 21,                       
1983.  He eventually applied to the court of appeals under App.                  
R. 26(B) to reopen the appeal from the judgment of conviction                    
and sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate                       
counsel.  On June 1, 1994, the court of appeals held that none                   
of the issues raised by appellant demonstrated violations of                     
counsel's essential duties or prejudiced appellant's appeal,                     
citing State v. Nicholas (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 431, 613 N.E.2d                   
225, and denied the application.                                                 
     Appellant appeals the denial to this court.                                 
                                                                                 
     P. Randall Knece, Pickaway County Prosecuting Attorney,                     
for appellee.                                                                    
     Wayne A. Timmons, pro se.                                                   
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  The decision of the court of appeals is                        
affirmed for the reasons stated therein.                                         
                                       Judgment affirmed.                        
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.                   
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.