Title: State v. Mack

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State v. Mack, 101 Ohio St.3d 397, 2004-Ohio-1526.] 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. MACK, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Mack, 101 Ohio St.3d 397, 2004-Ohio-1526.] 
Appellate procedure — Application to reopen appeal from judgment of 
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel 
— Court of appeals’ denial of application affirmed, when — Application 
denied when applicant fails to raise a genuine issue as to whether he was 
deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal as required by 
App.R. 26(B)(5). 
(No. 2003-1162 — Submitted January 12, 2004 — Decided April 14, 2004.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 62366, 2003-Ohio-
2605. 
____________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Appellant, Clarence Mack, was convicted of the aggravated 
murder and aggravated robbery of Peter Sanelli and was sentenced to death.  The 
court of appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence of death.  State v. Mack 
(Dec. 2, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 62366, 1993 WL 497052.  On appeal as of 
right, we also affirmed.  State v. Mack (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 502, 653 N.E.2d 
329. 
{¶2} 
Subsequently, the trial court dismissed Mack’s petition for post-
conviction relief, and the court of appeals affirmed.  State v. Mack (Oct. 26, 
2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 77459, 2000 WL 1594117.  We declined to accept 
Mack’s appeal of that decision.  State v. Mack (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1459, 743 
N.E.2d 400. 
{¶3} 
On June 15, 2001, Mack filed an untimely application in the court 
of appeals to reopen his direct appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B), alleging 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel before that court.  The court of 
appeals found that many of Mack’s arguments were barred by res judicata.  The 
court of appeals rejected the remaining claims of ineffective assistance on the 
merits.  This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
{¶4} 
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 determine whether a defendant has received ineffective assistance of appellate 
counsel.  See State v. Sheppard (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 329, 330, 744 N.E.2d 770; 
State v. Spivey (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 24, 25, 701 N.E.2d 696; State v. Reed 
(1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 534, 535, 660 N.E.2d 456. 
{¶5} 
In order to show ineffective assistance, Mack “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.”  
Sheppard, 91 Ohio St.3d at 330, 744 N.E.2d 770, citing State v. Bradley (1989), 
42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373, paragraph three of the syllabus.  Moreover, to 
justify reopening his appeal, Mack “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.”  Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d at 25, 701 N.E.2d 696. 
{¶6} 
We have reviewed the assertions of deficient performance by 
appellate counsel and find that Mack 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 by App.R. 26(B)(5). 
{¶7} 
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
____________ 
 
Jeffry F. Kelleher and Michael J. Benza, for appellant. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jon W. 
Oebker, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________