Title: State v. Jackson

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. Jackson, Appellant.                              
[Cite as State v. Jackson (1994),      Ohio St.3d      .]                        
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from                     
     judgment of conviction based on claim of ineffective                        
     assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when                  
     not filed within ninety days of journalization of                           
     appellate judgment as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).                       
     (No. 94-1487 Submitted October 11, 1994 -- Decided                          
December 7, 1994.)                                                               
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No.                   
C-910298.                                                                        
     Appellant, Ishmael Jackson, alleges he was convicted of                     
two counts of felonious assault on a police officer with a gun                   
specification, trafficking in cocaine, and drug abuse.  He                       
appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the conviction by                    
judgment entry of August 5, 1992.  Appellant's motion for leave                  
to appeal to this court was overruled.  State v. Jackson                         
(1993), 65 Ohio St.3d 1489, 605 N.E.2d 390.  He applied to the                   
court of appeals to reopen the appeal from the judgment of                       
conviction, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate                         
counsel pursuant to App. R. 26(B).  The court of appeals denied                  
the application on the basis that appellant failed to show good                  
cause for filing the application more than ninety days after                     
the court of appeals' judgment was journalized, as required by                   
App. R. 26(B)(2)(b).  Appellant appeals the denial to this                       
court.                                                                           
                                                                                 
     Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney,                     
and L. Susan Baker, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for                          
appellee.                                                                        
     Ishmael Jackson, pro se.                                                    
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  The decision of the court of appeals is                        
affirmed for the reasons stated therein.                                         
                                     Judgment affirmed.                          
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.                   
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.