Case Name: The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Beard, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1994-12-07
Citations: 71 Ohio St. 3d 89
Docket Number: No. 94-1436
Parties: The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Beard, Appellant.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 71
Pages: 89–90

Head Matter:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Beard, Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Beard (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 89.]
(No. 94-1436
Submitted October 11, 1994
Decided December 7, 1994.)
Dean Holman, Medina County Prosecuting Attorney, and John J. Dolatowski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Brian Beard, pro se.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Upon further examination of the pleadings, the court finds that the "Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction" attempts to combine an appeal as of right following the denial of a motion to reopen a case for ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to App.R. 26(B) (Proposition 2) with an appeal from the denial of a late motion for reconsideration pursuant to App.R. 26(A), from which there is no appeal as of right. Insofar as appellant's memorandum is in support of jurisdiction over a claimed appeal as of right and in support of a motion for leave to appeal a decision under App.R. 26(A), we dismiss the appeal as not involving a substantial constitutional question and deny leave to appeal. Insofar as the memorandum attempts to appeal the question of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under App.R. 26(B), the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.