Title: State v. Jones

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 376, 2001-Ohio-55.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. JONES, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Jones (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 376.] 
Appellate procedure — Application for reopening appeal from judgment of 
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel 
— Application denied when applicant fails to establish a genuine issue 
as to whether he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on 
appeal — Court of appeals’ denial of application affirmed. 
(No. 99-986 — Submitted January 30, 2001 — Decided April 25, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-970043. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellant, Elwood H. Jones, was convicted of aggravated 
murder with death specifications, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery.  
He was sentenced to death.  Upon appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the 
convictions and sentence.  State v. Jones (Aug. 28, 1998), Hamilton App. No. C-
970043, unreported, 1998 WL 542713.  On direct appeal as of right, we also 
affirmed his convictions and sentence on December 27, 2000.  State v. Jones 
(2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 403, 739 N.E.2d 300. 
 
On November 27, 1998, appellant filed an application for reopening with 
the court of appeals pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 
Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate 
counsel in his direct appeal. 
 
In denying appellant’s application for reopening, the court of appeals 
relied on State v. McNeill (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 457, 459, 700 N.E.2d 613, 615, 
and held that he had not properly alleged ineffective assistance of appellate 
counsel.  The court further held that if it were to assume that appellant had 
properly raised ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims, he failed to state 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
“ ‘the manner in which the deficiency [in appellate counsel’s performance] 
prejudicially affected the outcome of the appeal,’ which is required by App.R. 
26(B)(2)(d).”  (Bracketed material sic.)  The cause is now before the court upon 
an appeal as of right. 
 
We agree with the court of appeals that appellant failed to state a claim of 
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.  The two-pronged analysis found in 
Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 
is the appropriate standard to assess whether Jones has raised a “genuine issue” as 
to the ineffectiveness of appellate counsel in his request to reopen under App.R. 
26(B)(5).  See State v. Spivey (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 24, 25, 701 N.E.2d 696, 697. 
 
To justify reopening his appeal, Jones “bears the burden of establishing 
that there was a ‘genuine issue’ as to whether he has a ‘colorable claim’ of 
ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal.”  Id. 
 
We have reviewed appellant’s six propositions of law alleging deficient 
performance by appellate counsel.  In none of the six instances has Jones raised “a 
genuine issue as to whether [he] was deprived of the effective assistance of 
counsel on appeal” before the court of appeals, as required under App.R. 
26(B)(5). 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Michael K. Allen, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W. 
Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Gregory W. Meyers, Senior 
Assistant Public Defender, and Jennifer P. Hite, Assistant Public Defender, for 
appellant. 
__________________