Title: State v. Erwin

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
                                                                                 
              **** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING ****                               
                                                                                 
     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. Erwin, Appellant.                                
[Cite as State v. Erwin (1994),       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 show good cause for failure to file the                  
     motion within ninety days from journalization of the court                  
     of appeals' decision affirming the conviction, as required                  
     by App.R. 26(B)(1).                                                         
     (No. 94-1685--Submitted November 29, 1994 -- Decided                        
December 23, 1994.)                                                              
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Licking County, No.                    
93-CA-8.                                                                         
     Appellant, Max R. Erwin, Sr., was convicted of felonious                    
sexual penetration and gross sexual imposition in 1993 and                       
sentenced to eight to twenty-five years in prison.  He                           
appealed, alleging admission of improper hearsay evidence,                       
which the prsecuting attorney improperly used in his closing                     
argument.  The court of appeals affirmed the conviction.  State                  
v. Erwin, Sr.  (Oct. 4, 1993), Licking App. No. 93-CA-8,                         
unreported.  On June 6, 1994, he filed an application for                        
reopening of his appeal pursuant to App. R. 26 (B), alleging                     
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and other issues.                    
The court of appeals denied the motion, holding inter alia that                  
appellant had not shown good cause for failure to file the                       
motion within ninety days from the journalization of the court                   
of appeals's decision affirming the convictions, as required by                  
App. R. 26 (B) (1).  Appellant appeals from that decision.                       
                                                                                 
     Robert L. Becker, Licking County Prosecuting Attorney, and                  
Matthew W. McFarland, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for                        
appellee.                                                                        
     Max R. Erwin, Sr., pro se.                                                  
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  We affirm the judgment of the court of                         
appeals for the reason stated in its opinion.                                    
                                    Judgment affirmed.                           
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.                   
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.