State v. Colombo

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Colombo

1995 Ohio 321, 73 Ohio St. 3d 306

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 23, 1995

Docket1995-0652

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1995 Ohio 321 (State v. Colombo) 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. Colombo, 1995 Ohio 321, 73 Ohio St. 3d 306 (Ohio 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 73 Ohio St.3d 306.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. COLOMBO, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Colombo, 1995-Ohio-321.] 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 show good cause for not filing his application in a timely manner, when no colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is stated, and when re judicata bars consideration of the application. (No. 95-652—Submitted July 12, 1995—Decided August 23, 1995.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 52715. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Anthony Colombo, was convicted of murder with a firearms specification, carrying a concealed weapon, and felonious assault with a firearms specification and sentenced accordingly. The court of appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence. State v. Colombo (Oct. 7, 1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 52715, unreported, 1987 WL 17890, appeal dismissed (Apr. 4, 1988), case No. 87- 2071. {¶ 2} On August 25, 1994, Colombo filed with the court of appeals an application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application, finding that appellant had failed to establish good cause for not filing his application in a timely manner. Further, the court of appeals held that res judicata bars consideration of this application for reopening, since Colombo could have raised these issues in his previous pro se direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The court of appeals also found the arguments asserted by Colombo not sufficient to establish a colorable claim of SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Colombo now appeals the denial to this court. __________________ Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Diane Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. David L. Doughten, for appellant __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} We affirm the decision of the court of appeals 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 73 Ohio St.3d 306.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. COLOMBO, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Colombo, 1995-Ohio-321.] 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 show good cause for not filing his application in a timely manner, when no colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is stated, and when re judicata bars consideration of the application. (No. 95-652—Submitted July 12, 1995—Decided August 23, 1995.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 52715. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Anthony Colombo, was convicted of murder with a firearms specification, carrying a concealed weapon, and felonious assault with a firearms specification and sentenced accordingly. The court of appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence. State v. Colombo (Oct. 7, 1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 52715, unreported, 1987 WL 17890, appeal dismissed (Apr. 4, 1988), case No. 87- 2071. {¶ 2} On August 25, 1994, Colombo filed with the court of appeals an application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application, finding that appellant had failed to establish good cause for not filing his application in a timely manner. Further, the court of appeals held that res judicata bars consideration of this application for reopening, since Colombo could have raised these issues in his previous pro se direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The court of appeals also found the arguments asserted by Colombo not sufficient to establish a colorable claim of SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Colombo now appeals the denial to this court. __________________ Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Diane Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. David L. Doughten, for appellant __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} We affirm the decision of the court of appeals 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 321, 73 Ohio St. 3d 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-colombo-ohio-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack