Case Title: State v. Colombo

Citation: 1995-Ohio-321

Docket Number: 19950652

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-08-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
10611 
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Colombo, Appellant. 
1 
[Cite as State v. Colombo (1995), ______Ohio St.3d ______ .] 
2 
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from judgment and 
3 
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate 
4 
counsel -- Application denied when applicant fails to show good 
5 
cause for not filing his application in a timely manner, when no 
6 
colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is stated, 
7 
and when re judicata bars consideration of the application. 
8 
 
(No. 95-652--Submitted July 12, 1995 -- Decided August 23, 1995.) 
9 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 52715. 
10 
 
Appellant, Anthony Colombo, was convicted of murder with a 
11 
firearms specification, carrying a concealed weapon, and felonious assault 
12 
with a firearms specification and sentenced accordingly.  The court of 
13 
appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence.  State v. Colombo (Oct. 7, 
14 
1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 52715, unreported, 1987 WL 17890, appeal 
15 
dismissed (Apr. 4, 1988), case No. 87-2071. 
16 
 
On August 25, 1994, Colombo filed with the court of appeals an 
17 
application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective 
18 
 
2
assistance of his appellate counsel.  The court of appeals denied the 
1 
application, finding that appellant had failed to establish good cause for not 
2 
filing his application in a timely manner.  Further, the court of appeals held 
3 
that res judicata bars consideration of this application for reopening, since 
4 
Colombo could have raised these issues in his previous pro se direct appeal 
5 
to the Supreme Court.  The court of appeals also found the arguments 
6 
asserted by Colombo not sufficient to establish a colorable claim of 
7 
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.  Colombo now appeals the denial 
8 
to this court. 
9 
____________________________ 
10 
 
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
11 
Diane Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
12 
 
David L. Doughten for appellant 
13 
____________________________ 
14 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the 
15 
reasons stated in its opinion. 
16 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
17 
 
3
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
1 
and COOK, JJ., concur. 
2 
 
3