State v. Carroll

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Carroll

1995 Ohio 305, 72 Ohio St. 3d 87

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 26, 1995

Docket1994-2437

StatusPublished

This text of 1995 Ohio 305 (State v. Carroll) 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. Carroll, 1995 Ohio 305, 72 Ohio St. 3d 87 (Ohio 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 72 Ohio St.3d 87.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CARROLL, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Carroll, 1995-Ohio-305.] Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel— Application denied when applicant fails to establish good cause for failing to file his application within ninety days after journalization of the court of appeals' decision affirming the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B). (No. 94-2437—Submitted February 7, 1995—Decided April 26, 1995.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 62747. __________________ {¶ 1} According to the court of appeals' opinion, appellant, Daniel Carroll, was convicted of cocaine possession with a previous conviction for a drug offense, carrying a concealed weapon with a violence specification, and having a weapon while under disability with violence and firearm specifications. He appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the convictions. State v. Carroll (June 10, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 62747, unreported. It is agreed that on August 25, 1994, he filed an application to reopen his appeal pursuant to App. R. 26 (B), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application, holding that appellant failed to establish good cause for filing the application more than ninety days after the judgment affirming his conviction on appeal was journalized, as required by App. R. 26 (B) (1) and (2) (b). The court also found that appellant's claims failed to establish a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Appellant now appeals to this court. __________________ Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and John W. Monroe, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Daniel Carroll, pro se. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion. 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 72 Ohio St.3d 87.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CARROLL, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Carroll, 1995-Ohio-305.] Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel— Application denied when applicant fails to establish good cause for failing to file his application within ninety days after journalization of the court of appeals' decision affirming the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B). (No. 94-2437—Submitted February 7, 1995—Decided April 26, 1995.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 62747. __________________ {¶ 1} According to the court of appeals' opinion, appellant, Daniel Carroll, was convicted of cocaine possession with a previous conviction for a drug offense, carrying a concealed weapon with a violence specification, and having a weapon while under disability with violence and firearm specifications. He appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the convictions. State v. Carroll (June 10, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 62747, unreported. It is agreed that on August 25, 1994, he filed an application to reopen his appeal pursuant to App. R. 26 (B), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application, holding that appellant failed to establish good cause for filing the application more than ninety days after the judgment affirming his conviction on appeal was journalized, as required by App. R. 26 (B) (1) and (2) (b). The court also found that appellant's claims failed to establish a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Appellant now appeals to this court. __________________ Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and John W. Monroe, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Daniel Carroll, pro se. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Ohio 305, 72 Ohio St. 3d 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carroll-ohio-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack