Title: State v. Cooey

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Cooey, Appellant. 
1 
[Cite as State v. Cooey (1995),    Ohio St. 3d    .] 
2 
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from judgment and 
3 
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate 
4 
counsel -- Application denied when applicant fails to establish good 
5 
cause for failing to file timely application to reopen. 
6 
 
(No. 95-435--Submitted June 21, 1995 --Decided August 30, 1995.) 
7 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 12943. 
8 
 
Appellant, Richard Cooey II, was convicted of four counts of 
9 
aggravated murder, with three capital specifications attached to each count; 
10 
two counts of kidnapping; two counts of rape; two counts of aggravated 
11 
robbery; and one count of felonious assault.  He received two sentences of 
12 
death.  The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences.  State v. 
13 
Cooey (Dec. 23, 1987), Summit App.No. 12943.  On direct appeal as of 
14 
right, we also affirmed appellant’s convictions and death sentences.  State v. 
15 
Cooey (1989), 46 Ohio St. 3d 20, 544 N.E.2d 895, certiorari denied, Cooey 
16 
v. Ohio (1990), 499 U.S. 954, 111 S.Ct. 1431, 113 L. Ed.2d 482, rehearing 
17 
denied (1991), 500 U.S. 938, 111 S Ct. 2068, 114 L. Ed.2d 472. 
18 
 
Appellant’s original ineffective assistance of counsel claim was filed 
1 
as a post-conviction action on February 6, 1992.  On February 19, 1992, this 
2 
court decided in State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St. 3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 
3 
1204, that ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims were not 
4 
cognizable in post-conviction actions.  On appeal from the dismissal of 
5 
appellant’s post-conviction action, the court of appeals held that Murnahan 
6 
controlled and that appellant’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel 
7 
claim could not be heard in a post-conviction proceeding.  State v. Cooey 
8 
(May 25, 1994), Summit App. Nos. 15895 and 15966, unreported.  On July 
9 
1, 1993, App.R. 26 (B) became effective, requiring that an application to 
10 
reopen an appeal, where ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is 
11 
alleged, be filed within ninety days from the journalization of the appellate 
12 
judgment. 
13 
 
Appellant filed an application to reopen his direct appeal on 
14 
November 3, 1994, almost seven years after the conclusion of his direct 
15 
appeal and over one year after App. R. 26 (B) became effective.  The court 
16 
of appeals denied appellant’s application to reopen, finding that he had 
17 
failed to establish good cause for not filing the application to reopen within 
18 
ninety days from the effective date of App.R. 26(B), July 1, 1993.  
1 
Appellant appeals the denial of his application. 
2 
 
 
 
______________________ 
3 
 
Maureen O’Connor, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
4 
William D. Wellemeyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
5 
 
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Cynthia A. Yost and 
6 
William S. Lazarow, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant. 
7 
 
 
 
______________________ 
8 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellant has failed to show good cause for the 
9 
untimely filing of his application to reopen.  See State v. Reddick (1995), 72 
10 
Ohio St.3d 88, 647 N.E.2d 784.   We therefore affirm the judgment of the 
11 
court of appeals. 
12 
 
13 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
14 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and 
15 
PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
16 
 
COOK, J., not participating. 
17 
 
18