Case Name: The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Goines, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1996-01-31
Citations: 74 Ohio St. 3d 409
Docket Number: No. 95-1325
Parties: The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Goines, Appellant.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 74
Pages: 409–410

Head Matter:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Goines, Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Goines (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 409.]
(No. 95-1325
Submitted October 24, 1995
Decided January 31, 1996.)
Larry D. Goines, pro se.
Stephen M. Miller, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the following reasons. Like the court of appeals, we disregard appellant's propositions of law that are not related to the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Appellant's fourth proposition of law asserts ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The gist of the claim seems to be that appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing that trial counsel was ineffective because he did not vigorously attack two eyewitnesses' identifications of appellant as the robber and attempt to establish appellant's brother as the robber. Like the court of appeals, we hold that appellant's record fails to establish that trial counsel was ineffective, and, therefore, appellant has failed to demonstrate that the genuine issue required by App.R. 26(B)(5) exists.
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.