Case Title: State v. Jalowiec

Citation: 2001-Ohio-164

Docket Number: 19991753

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-08-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State v. Jalowiec, 92 Ohio St.3d 421, 2001-Ohio-164.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. JALOWIEC, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Jalowiec (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 421.] 
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 to reopen appeal affirmed, 
albeit for different reasons — Application denied when claimant 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 
by App.R. 26(B)(5). 
(No. 99-1753 — Submitted May 15, 2001 — Decided August 8, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 96CA006445. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellant, Stanley E. Jalowiec, was convicted of aggravated 
murder with death-penalty and firearm specifications.  He was sentenced to death.  
Upon appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence.  State v. 
Jalowiec (Apr. 15, 1998), Lorain App. No. 96CA006445, unreported, 1998 WL 
178554.  On direct appeal as of right, we also affirmed his convictions and 
sentence on April 4, 2001.  State v. Jalowiec (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 220, 744 
N.E.2d 163. 
 
On July 8, 1999, appellant filed an application for reopening with the court 
of appeals 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 in his 
direct appeal. 
 
In denying appellant’s application for reopening, the court of appeals 
essentially found that Jalowiec had failed to show good cause for filing his 
application more than ninety days after that court’s judgment was journalized, as 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).  State v. Jalowiec (Aug. 18, 1999), Lorain App. 
No. 96CA006445, unreported.  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 Jalowiec has raised a “genuine issue” as to the ineffectiveness of 
appellate counsel in his request to reopen under App.R. 26(B)(5).  See State v. 
Spivey (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 24, 25, 701 N.E.2d 696, 697.  To show ineffective 
assistance, Jalowiec 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 they 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, Jalowiec “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 appellant’s twenty propositions of law alleging, inter 
alia, deficient performance by appellate counsel.  Many of these same arguments 
were rejected by us on Jalowiec’s appeal before this court.  See State v. Jalowiec, 
91 Ohio St.3d 220, 744 N.E.2d 163.  In any case, however, in none of the twenty 
propositions of law has Jalowiec raised “a genuine issue as to whether [he] was 
deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal” (emphasis added) 
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. 
January Term, 2001 
3 
__________________ 
 
Gregory A. White, Lorain County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jonathan E. 
Rosenbaum, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
Stanley E. Jalowiec, pro se. 
__________________