State v. Bennett, 90815 (1-26-2009)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Bennett, 90815 (1-26-2009)

2009 Ohio 343

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 26, 2009

DocketNo. 90815.

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2009 Ohio 343 (State v. Bennett, 90815 (1-26-2009)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bennett, 90815 (1-26-2009), 2009 Ohio 343 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION {¶ 1} Collins J. Bennett, Jr. has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App. R. 26(B). Bennett is attempting to revisit the appellate judgment rendered by this court in State v. Bennett (Jan. 14, 2008), Cuyahoga App. No. 90815, which denied his pro se motion for leave to file a delayed appeal. For the following reasons, we are prevented from granting Bennett's application.

{¶ 2} Initially, we find that App. R. 26(B) is not applicable to the facts pertinent to Bennett's appeal. No appellate judgment, which reviewed Bennett's plea of guilty to four counts of involuntary manslaughter, has been announced and journalized by *Page 3 this court. Thus, we are prevented from considering Bennett's application for reopening brought pursuant to App. R. 26(B). State v.Skaggs (May 12, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 76301, reopening disallowed (Sept. 21, 1999), Motion No. 7505. See, also, State v. Loomer,76 Ohio St.3d 398, 1996-Ohio-59, 667 N.E.2d 1209; State v. Halliwell (Jan 29, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 70369, reopening disallowed (Jan 29, 1999), Motion No. 00187; State v. Fields (Feb. 29, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 68906, reopening disallowed (Sep. 5, 1997), Motion No. 84867; State v.Williams (Oct. 31, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69936, reopening disallowed (May 7, 1997), Motion No. 82993.

{¶ 3} In addition, an application for reopening may be granted by this court only upon a showing that there exists a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of appellate counsel on appeal. See App. R. 26(B)(5). No appellate counsel was involved in the underlying appeal, since Bennett filed a motion for a delayed appeal, pro se. Thus, Bennett cannot establish a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. State v. McCauley, Cuyahoga App. No. 81328, 2005-Ohio-6093. Bennett is also precluded from arguing his own ineffectiveness on appeal vis-a-vis his pro se representation.State v. Boone (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 275, 683 N.E.2d 67; State v.Smith (Nov. 29, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79292, reopening disallowed (Mar. 8, 2002), Motion No. 36058; State v. Bobo (Jan. 16, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 60013, reopening disallowed (Apr. 10, 1996), Motion No. 69762. *Page 4

{¶ 4} Accordingly, we deny the application for reopening.

CHRISTINE T. McMONAGLE, P.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR.

*Page 1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION {¶ 1} Collins J. Bennett, Jr. has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App. R. 26(B). Bennett is attempting to revisit the appellate judgment rendered by this court in State v. Bennett (Jan. 14, 2008), Cuyahoga App. No. 90815, which denied his pro se motion for leave to file a delayed appeal. For the following reasons, we are prevented from granting Bennett's application.

{¶ 2} Initially, we find that App. R. 26(B) is not applicable to the facts pertinent to Bennett's appeal. No appellate judgment, which reviewed Bennett's plea of guilty to four counts of involuntary manslaughter, has been announced and journalized by *Page 3 this court. Thus, we are prevented from considering Bennett's application for reopening brought pursuant to App. R. 26(B). State v.Skaggs (May 12, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 76301, reopening disallowed (Sept. 21, 1999), Motion No. 7505. See, also, State v. Loomer,76 Ohio St.3d 398, 1996-Ohio-59, 667 N.E.2d 1209; State v. Halliwell (Jan 29, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 70369, reopening disallowed (Jan 29, 1999), Motion No. 00187; State v. Fields (Feb. 29, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 68906, reopening disallowed (Sep. 5, 1997), Motion No. 84867; State v.Williams (Oct. 31, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69936, reopening disallowed (May 7, 1997), Motion No. 82993.

{¶ 3} In addition, an application for reopening may be granted by this court only upon a showing that there exists a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of appellate counsel on appeal. See App. R. 26(B)(5). No appellate counsel was involved in the underlying appeal, since Bennett filed a motion for a delayed appeal, pro se. Thus, Bennett cannot establish a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. State v. McCauley, Cuyahoga App. No. 81328, 2005-Ohio-6093. Bennett is also precluded from arguing his own ineffectiveness on appeal vis-a-vis his pro se representation.State v. Boone (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 275, 683 N.E.2d 67; State v.Smith (Nov. 29, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79292, reopening disallowed (Mar. 8, 2002), Motion No. 36058; State v. Bobo (Jan. 16, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 60013, reopening disallowed (Apr. 10, 1996), Motion No. 69762. *Page 4

{¶ 4} Accordingly, we deny the application for reopening.

CHRISTINE T. McMONAGLE, P.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR.

*Page 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2009 Ohio 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bennett-90815-1-26-2009-ohioctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack