Title: State v. Carter

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     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. Carter, Appellant.                               
[Cite as State v. Carter (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                  
     not filed within ninety days of journalization of                           
     appellate judgment -- App.R. 26(B)(1).                                      
     (No. 94-1309 -- Submitted August 17, 1994 -- Decided                        
November 9, 1994.)                                                               
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No.                   
C-890513.                                                                        
     Appellant Clarence Carter filed an application in the                       
Court of Appeals for Hamilton County under App. R. 26(B) to                      
reopen the appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence                   
under which he was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced                  
to death, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate                           
counsel.  The court of appeals denied the application, noting                    
that it had been filed more than ninety days after                               
journalization of the appellate judgment.  The court further                     
held that appellant had failed to show good cause for the                        
untimely filing, specifically holding that the fact that                         
appellant was represented by the same counsel on direct appeal                   
to the court of appeals and this court did not establish good                    
cause for filing this application over one year after this                       
court's decision.                                                                
     Appellant appealed to this court.                                           
                                                                                 
     Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney,                     
and L. Susan Laker, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for                          
appellee.                                                                        
     David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Linda E. Prucha                     
and Joseph E. Wilhelm, Assistant Public Defenders, for                           
appellant.                                                                       
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  We affirm the decision of the court of                         
appeals for the reasons stated by the court of appeals.                          
                                    Judgment affirmed.                           
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.                   
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.