Title: State v. Jackson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Jackson, Appellant.  
1 
[Cite as State v. Jackson (1996), ____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 
2 
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from 
3 
judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective 
4 
assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when 
5 
applicant fails to show good cause for failing to file his 
6 
application within ninety days after journalization of the court 
7 
of appeals’ decision affirming the conviction, as required by 
8 
App.R. 26(B), and fails to disclose the existence of a genuine 
9 
issue as to appellate counsel’s effectiveness. 
10 
 
(No. 96-357 -- Submitted June 25, 1996 -- Decided August 7, 1996.) 
11 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 62013. 
12 
 
Appellant, Demetrius Jackson, was convicted of selling or offering to 
13 
sell cocaine, possession of cocaine, and possession of criminal tools.  He 
14 
was thereafter sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment.  Upon 
15 
appeal, the convictions were affirmed.  State v. Jackson (Apr. 5, 1993), 
16 
Cuyahoga App. No. 62013, unreported.  Appellant’s further appeal to this 
17 
court was dismissed, sua sponte.  State v. Jackson (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 
18 
1469, 619 N.E.2d 1026. 
19 
 
2
 
According to appellant, in September 1995, he filed an application for 
1 
reopening before the court of appeals pursuant to App. R. 26(B), alleging 
2 
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.  The court of appeals, on January 
3 
4, 1996, found that the application was untimely without good cause shown, 
4 
and, further, that the application failed to disclose the existence of a genuine 
5 
issue as to appellate counsel’s effectiveness.  This appeal followed. 
6 
 
__________________ 
7 
 
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
8 
Diane Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
9 
 
Demetrius Jackson, pro se. 
10 
 
___________________ 
11 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the 
12 
reasons stated in its journal entry. 
13 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
14 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK 
15 
and STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
16 
 
17