Title: State v. Biros

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State v. Biros, 93 Ohio St.3d 250, 2001-Ohio-1339] 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BIROS, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Biros (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 250.] 
Appellate procedure — Application for reopening appeal from judgment of 
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel 
— Application denied when claimant fails to raise a genuine issue as to 
whether he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal 
as required under App.R. 26(B)(5) — Court of appeals’ denial of 
application to reopen appeal affirmed. 
(No. 01-317 — Submitted July 17, 2001 — Decided September 26, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, No. 91-T-4632. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellant, Kenneth L. Biros, was convicted of the 
aggravated murder of Tami Engstrom and sentenced to death.  He was also 
convicted and sentenced to prison for felonious sexual penetration, aggravated 
robbery, and attempted rape.  The court of appeals upheld the death sentence but 
set aside the findings of guilt of aggravated robbery as it related to the felony-
murder charge and the death specification charging murder during an aggravated 
robbery.  State v. Biros (Dec. 29, 1995), Trumbull App. No. 91-T-4632, 
unreported.  On direct appeal as of right, we reinstated the findings of guilt as to 
aggravated robbery, affirmed the remaining convictions, and affirmed the death 
penalty.  State v. Biros (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 426, 678 N.E.2d 891, certiorari 
denied, Biros v. Ohio (1997), 522 U.S. 1002, 118 S.Ct. 574, 139 L.Ed.2d 413. 
 
Subsequently, the trial court denied Biros’s petition for postconviction 
relief, and the court of appeals affirmed.  State v. Biros (May 28, 1999), Trumbull 
App. No. 98-T-0051, unreported, 1999 WL 391090.  We declined to accept 
Biros’s appeal.  State v. Biros (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 1406, 716 N.E.2d 1168. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
On September 15, 2000, Biros filed an application with the Trumbull 
County Court of Appeals to reopen his appeal from his conviction 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 before that court.  However, 
the court of appeals found that Biros had failed to show good cause for filing his 
application more than ninety days after that court’s judgment was journalized, as 
required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).  State v. Biros (Dec. 27, 2000), Trumbull App. 
No. 91-T-4632, unreported.  Hence, that court denied Biros’s application to 
reopen his appeal.  The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
 
In his first proposition of law, Biros argues that he had good cause for the 
late filing of his application for reconsideration under App.R. 26(B) and relies, in 
part, upon Paris v. Turner (C.A.6, 1999), 187 F.3d 637, decision reported without 
opinion; opinion at 1999 WL 357815, to support his claim of good cause.  
However, our disposition of Biros’s remaining propositions, on the merits, 
negates any need to decide that issue. 
 
In his second and third propositions of law, Biros asserts that his counsel 
have established a genuine issue as to whether he was denied the effective 
assistance of counsel in his initial appeal to the court of appeals.  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 Biros 
has raised a genuine issue as to the ineffectiveness of appellate counsel in his 
request to reopen under App.R. 26(B)(5).  State v. Spivey (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 
24, 25, 701 N.E.2d 696, 697; State v. Reed (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 534, 535, 660 
N.E.2d 456, 458.  “To show ineffective assistance, [Biros] 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 he presented those claims on appeal.”  
State v. Sheppard (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 329, 330, 744 N.E.2d 770, 771, citing 
State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373, paragraph three of 
January Term, 2001 
3 
the syllabus.  Moreover, to justify reopening his appeal, Biros “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 Biros’s assertions of deficient performance by 
appellate counsel and find that Biros has failed 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 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. 
__________________ 
 
Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecuting Attorney, and LuWayne 
Annos, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
David Bodiker, State Public Defender, and Angie Greene, Assistant Public 
Defender, for appellant. 
__________________