Title: State v. Franklin

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. Franklin, Appellant.                             
[Cite as State v. Franklin (1995),        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                  
     applicant fails to establish good cause for failing to                      
     file within ninety days after journalization of the court                   
     of appeals' decision affirming the conviction, as required                  
     by App.R. 26(B).                                                            
     (No. 95-214 -- Submitted April 4, 1995 -- Decided June                      
28,1995.)                                                                        
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, Nos.                  
55604 and 55684.                                                                 
     In 1987, appellant, Fred Franklin, was indicted on three                    
counts of drug possession, two counts of having a weapon under                   
disability, two counts of possessing criminal tools, and one                     
count of carrying a concealed weapon.  He was subsequently                       
convicted on all counts, and the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga                   
County affirmed the convictions on appeal, but remanded the                      
cause for partial resentencing.  State v. Franklin (Aug. 9,                      
1989), Cuyahoga App. Nos 55604 and 55684, unreported.  Over                      
five years later, on October 25, 1994, appellant filed an                        
application to reopen his appeal under App. R. 26 (B), alleging                  
ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel.  The court of                   
appeals found that appellant had failed to establish good cause                  
for filing the application more than ninety days after                           
journalization of the appellate judgment sought to be reopened,                  
as required by App. R. 26 (B) (2) (b), and that appellant had                    
failed to submit with his application a "sworn statement of the                  
basis for the claim that appellate counsel's representation was                  
deficient with respect to the assignments of error or arguments                  
raised pursuant to * * * [App. R. 26(B)(2)(c)] and the manner                    
in which the deficiency prejudicially affected the outcome of                    
the appeal * * *."  Nevertheless, the court of appeals                           
considered all ten of appellant's assignments of error on the                    
merits and, regarding each assignment, found that the issue was                  
res judicata, or that counsel was not ineffective, or that                       
appellant had demonstrated no prejudice.                                         
     Appellant appeals from this decision.                                       
                                                                                 
     Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting                          
Attorney, and Karen L. Johnson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,                  
for appellee.                                                                    
     Fred Franklin, pro se.                                                      
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  We affirm the judgment of the court of                         
appeals.                                                                         
     On appeal, appellant argues, inter alia, that he did argue                  
good cause for untimely filing in his application to                             
reopen--that he was ignorant of the law and did not know how to                  
proceed.  However, in  State v. Reddick (1995), 72 Ohio St. 3d                   
88, 91, 647 N.E. 2d 784, 786, we held that ignorance of the law                  
is not a sufficient justification for untimely filing.                           
     Appellant also argues that he complied with App. R. 26 (B)                  
(2) (d) by attaching an affidavit swearing to the truth of the                   
allegations of his application.  However, such an affidavit                      
falls short of the particularity required by the rule.                           
Moreover, as we suggested in State v. Lechner (1995), 72 Ohio                    
St. 3d      ,      ,       N.E. 2d        ,       , one reason                   
for failure to file the required sworn statement may be that                     
many of the claims were in fact considered by an appellate                       
court, thereby precluding compliance with App. R. 26 (B) (2)                     
(c) and (d).  Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals                  
is affirmed.                                                                     
                                 Judgment affirmed.                              
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney,                        
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.