Title: State v. Smith

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. Smith, Appellant.                                
[Cite as State v. Smith (1994),      Ohio St.3d      .]                          
Appellate procedure -- App.R. 26(B) -- Application for                           
reopening appeal from judgment of conviction based on claim of                   
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel -- Application                       
denied when appellant fails to show that appellate counsel was                   
ineffective or that appellant was prejudiced by his counsel's                    
performance.                                                                     
     (No. 94-813 -- Submitted August 17, 1994 -- Decided                         
November 9, 1994.)                                                               
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.                   
54416.                                                                           
     Appellant, Donald L. Smith, alleges he was convicted of                     
one count of aggravated robbery, one count of kidnapping, and                    
one count of felonious assault and was sentenced to three                        
concurrent terms of imprisonment, two for ten to twenty-five                     
years and one for eight to fifteen years.  He appealed, and the                  
Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County affirmed the conviction by                  
judgment entry of November 10, 1988.  In 1993, he applied to                     
the court of appeals under App. R. 26(B) to reopen the appeal                    
from the judgment of conviction and sentence, alleging                           
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.  The court of                       
appeals denied the application on the basis that appellant                       
failed to meet the standard for reopening his appeal.  In other                  
words, appellant failed to show that appellate counsel was                       
ineffective or that appellant was prejudiced by his counsel's                    
performance.  Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668,                     
104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.  Appellant appeals the denial                   
to this court.                                                                   
                                                                                 
     Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting                          
Attorney, and Karen L. Johnson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,                  
for appellee.                                                                    
     Donald L. Smith, pro se.                                                    
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  The decision of the court of appeals is                        
affirmed for the reasons stated by the court of appeals.                         
                                    Judgment affirmed.                           
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney                   
and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.                                                        
     Wright, J., dissents.