Title: State v. Graham

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
                                                                                 
              **** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING ****                               
                                                                                 
     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. Graham, Appellant.                               
[Cite as State v. Graham (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, inter alia, no colorable claim of ineffective                         
     assistance of appellate counsel exists.                                     
     (No. 94-1879 -- Submitted November 29, 1994 -- Decided                      
December 23, 1994.)                                                              
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.                   
33350.                                                                           
     According to appellant, Floyd Graham, he was convicted in                   
1973 of first-degree murder (former R.C. 2901.01), taking the                    
life of a police officer (former R.C. 2901.04), and intentional                  
shooting (former R.C. 2901.23).  The Court of Appeals for                        
Cuyahoga County affirmed Graham's convictions, State v. Graham                   
(June 12, 1975), Cuyahoga App. No. 33350, unreported.  This                      
court overruled Graham's motion for leave to appeal.                             
     On May 6, 1994, Graham filed in the court of appeals a                      
delayed application for reconsideration of his appeal from the                   
judgment of conviction.  The application, filed pursuant to                      
App. R. 14(B) and former App. R. 26, alleged ineffective                         
assistance of appellate counsel.  See State v. Murnahan (1992),                  
63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204.  The court of appeals                         
overruled the application.  (May 17, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No.                    
33350, unreported.  Graham did not appeal that judgment.                         
     However, on June 10, 1994, Graham applied again for                         
reopening of the appeal, this time under App. R. 26(B), adopted                  
July 1, 1993.  The court of appeals denied this second                           
application because Graham had not shown good cause for failing                  
to file within ninety days after App. R. 26(B) took effect;                      
because the application exceeded the ten-page limit of App. R.                   
26(B)(4); and because the court's denial of the May 6th                          
application was res judicata to the June 10th application.                       
Nonetheless, the court also examined the application's merits,                   
finding that "there exists no colorable claim of ineffective                     
assistance of appellate counsel."  Graham appeals the denial of                  
his June 10th application.                                                       
                                                                                 
     Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting                          
Attorney, and George J. Sadd, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,                    
for appellee.                                                                    
     Paul Mancino, Jr., for appellant.                                           
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  We affirm the judgment of the court of                         
appeals for the reasons stated in that court's opinion.                          
                                    Judgment affirmed.                           
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.                   
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.