State v. Carpenter

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Carpenter

1996 Ohio 279, 74 Ohio St. 3d 408

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 31, 1996

Docket1995-1129

StatusPublished

This text of 1996 Ohio 279 (State v. Carpenter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Carpenter, 1996 Ohio 279, 74 Ohio St. 3d 408 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 408.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CARPENTER, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Carpenter, 1996-Ohio-279.] Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and convictions based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel— Application denied when applicant fails to establish good cause for failing to file within ninety days after journalization of the court of appeals’ decision affirming the convictions, as required by App.R. 26(B). (No. 95-1129—Submitted October 24, 1995—Decided January 31, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 90AP-803. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Robert Carpenter, was convicted of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of thirty years to life and ten to twenty years, respectively. He appealed, and his convictions were affirmed. State v. Carpenter (Mar. 12, 1991), Franklin App. No. 90AP-803, unreported. {¶ 2} In 1994, appellant filed an application to reopen his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B), claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. As good cause for failing to file within ninety days of journalization of the judgment sought to be reopened, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), appellant stated that he was unaware he could raise an assignment of error related to sufficiency of the evidence. The court of appeals found that this reason did not constitute good cause, and appellant appealed its decision to this court. __________________ Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Dennis C. Belli, for appellant. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on authority of State v. Reddick (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 647 N.E.2d 784. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 408.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CARPENTER, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Carpenter, 1996-Ohio-279.] Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and convictions based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel— Application denied when applicant fails to establish good cause for failing to file within ninety days after journalization of the court of appeals’ decision affirming the convictions, as required by App.R. 26(B). (No. 95-1129—Submitted October 24, 1995—Decided January 31, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 90AP-803. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Robert Carpenter, was convicted of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of thirty years to life and ten to twenty years, respectively. He appealed, and his convictions were affirmed. State v. Carpenter (Mar. 12, 1991), Franklin App. No. 90AP-803, unreported. {¶ 2} In 1994, appellant filed an application to reopen his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B), claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. As good cause for failing to file within ninety days of journalization of the judgment sought to be reopened, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), appellant stated that he was unaware he could raise an assignment of error related to sufficiency of the evidence. The court of appeals found that this reason did not constitute good cause, and appellant appealed its decision to this court. __________________ Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Dennis C. Belli, for appellant. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on authority of State v. Reddick (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 647 N.E.2d 784. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Ohio 279, 74 Ohio St. 3d 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carpenter-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack