Title: State v. Jells

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State v. Jells, 90 Ohio St.3d 454, 2000-Ohio-93.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. JELLS, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Jells (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 454.] 
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 — Application denied 
when applicant fails to establish a colorable claim of ineffective 
assistance of counsel on the part of appellate counsel. 
(No. 00-1053 — Submitted October 10, 2000 — Decided December 27, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 54733. 
 
Appellant, Reginald Jells, was convicted of aggravated murder with a 
death specification, and two counts of kidnapping.  He was sentenced to death.  
Upon appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence.  State v. 
Jells (May 1, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 54733, unreported.  On direct appeal as 
of right, we also affirmed his convictions and sentence on August 8, 1990.  State 
v. Jells (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 22, 559 N.E.2d 464. 
 
On March 11, 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 on 
his direct appeal. 
 
The court of appeals stated that the application was untimely and that Jells 
had failed to show good cause for the late application.  The court further opined 
that res judicata also required that the application be denied.  In addition, the 
court of appeals reasoned that counsel failed to file a sufficient affidavit, pursuant 
to App.R. 26(B)(2)(d), setting forth the basis for the claim that appellate counsel 
had been deficient in prejudicially affecting the outcome of the appeal. 
 
2 
 
Notwithstanding those findings, the court of appeals reached the merits of 
appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and found that 
none of them was meritorious.  The court relied on the standard of review in State 
v. Spivey (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 24, 25, 701 N.E.2d 696, 697, which adopted the 
two-prong analysis found in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 
S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, in rejecting appellant’s six assignments of error on 
their merits. 
 
The cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Reno J. 
Ordani, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
Shawn Martin, for appellant. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Based on the reasoning set forth in its opinion, we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals denying appellant’s application for reopening for 
failing to establish a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on the 
part of appellate counsel.  Spivey, supra, 84 Ohio St.3d at 25, 701 N.E.2d at 697.  
In none of the six instances has Jells raised “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). 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.