Case Title: State v. Sheppard

Citation: 2001-Ohio-52

Docket Number: 20001861

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-04-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State v. Sheppard, 91 Ohio St.3d 329, 2001-Ohio-52.] 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SHEPPARD, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Sheppard (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 329.] 
Appellate procedure — Application for reopening appeal from judgment of 
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel 
— Court of appeals’ denial of application affirmed albeit for different 
reasons — Application denied when applicant fails to raise a genuine 
issue as to whether he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel 
on appeal before the court of appeals as required under App.R. 26(B)(5). 
(No. 00-1861 — Submitted January 30, 2001 — Decided April 11, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, Nos. C-950402 
and C-950744. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellant, Bobby T. Sheppard, was convicted of the 
aggravated murder of Dennis Willhide and sentenced to death.  He was also 
convicted and sentenced to prison for aggravated robbery.  The court of appeals 
affirmed the convictions and sentence.  State v. Sheppard (June 11, 1997), 
Hamilton App. Nos. C-950402 and C-950744, unreported.  On direct appeal as of 
right, we also affirmed.  State v. Sheppard (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 230, 703 N.E.2d 
286, certiorari denied, Sheppard v. Ohio (1999), 527 U.S. 1026, 119 S.Ct. 2376, 
144 L.Ed.2d 779. 
 
Additionally, the trial court dismissed Sheppard’s third amended petition 
for postconviction relief, and the court of appeals affirmed.  State v. Sheppard 
(Mar. 26, 1999), Hamilton App. No. C-980569, unreported, 1999 WL 162457.  
We declined to accept Sheppard’s appeal.  State v. Sheppard (1999), 86 Ohio 
St.3d 1437, 713 N.E.2d 1049, certiorari denied, Sheppard v. Ohio (2000), 528 
U.S. 1168, 120 S.Ct. 1190, 145 L.Ed.2d 1095. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
On March 9, 2000, Sheppard filed an application with the court of appeals 
to reopen his appeal from his convictions pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v. 
Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, alleging ineffective 
assistance of appellate counsel before that court.  However, the court of appeals 
found that Sheppard had failed to show good cause for filing his application more 
than ninety days after that court’s judgment was journalized, as required by 
App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).  State v. Sheppard (Oct. 2, 2000), Hamilton App. Nos. C-
950402 and C-950744, unreported.  Hence, that court denied Sheppard’s 
application to reopen his appeal.  The cause is now before this court upon an 
appeal as of right. 
 
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals, albeit for different 
reasons.  The two-pronged analysis found in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 
U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, is the appropriate standard to assess 
whether Sheppard 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. Spivey 
(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 24, 25, 701 N.E.2d 696, 697; State v. Reed (1996), 74 Ohio 
St.3d 534, 535, 660 N.E.2d 456, 458.  To show ineffective assistance, Sheppard 
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.  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, Sheppard “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.”  State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio 
St.3d at 25, 701 N.E.2d at 697.  We have reviewed Sheppard’s assertions of 
deficient performance by appellate counsel and find that Sheppard has failed to 
raise “a genuine issue as to whether [he] was deprived of the effective assistance 
January Term, 2001 
3 
of counsel on appeal” before the court of appeals as required under App.R. 
26(B)(5). 
 
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. 
__________________ 
 
Michael K. Allen, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and William E. 
Breyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and Jane Perry, Assistant Public 
Defender, for appellant. 
__________________