State v. Oden

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Oden

1996 Ohio 11, 74 Ohio St. 3d 234

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 10, 1996

Docket1995-1052

StatusPublished

This text of 1996 Ohio 11 (State v. Oden) 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. Oden, 1996 Ohio 11, 74 Ohio St. 3d 234 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 234.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. ODEN, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Oden, 1996-Ohio-11.] 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. 95-1052—Submitted September 12, 1995—Decided January 10, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 13869. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Master Chaunce’ Oden, was convicted of aggravated burglary with a prior aggravated felony specification and sentenced accordingly. The Court of Appeals for Summit County affirmed the conviction. State v. Oden (May 3, 1989), Summit App. No. 13869, unreported. {¶ 2} On March 7, 1994, appellant filed an application for reopening pursuant to App. R. 26(B), alleging as good cause for failure to file within ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), that he was pursuing various appeals and collateral attacks on the judgment instead, and that the riots at the Southern Ohio Correctional Institute also impeded his ability to file a timely application. The court of appeals denied the application, finding that appellant failed to file the application in a timely manner, rejecting the stated reasons for good cause. This appeal followed. __________________ Maureen O’Connor, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and William D. Wellemeyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Master Chaunce’ Oden, pro se. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its judgment entry. 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 234.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. ODEN, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Oden, 1996-Ohio-11.] 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. 95-1052—Submitted September 12, 1995—Decided January 10, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 13869. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Master Chaunce’ Oden, was convicted of aggravated burglary with a prior aggravated felony specification and sentenced accordingly. The Court of Appeals for Summit County affirmed the conviction. State v. Oden (May 3, 1989), Summit App. No. 13869, unreported. {¶ 2} On March 7, 1994, appellant filed an application for reopening pursuant to App. R. 26(B), alleging as good cause for failure to file within ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), that he was pursuing various appeals and collateral attacks on the judgment instead, and that the riots at the Southern Ohio Correctional Institute also impeded his ability to file a timely application. The court of appeals denied the application, finding that appellant failed to file the application in a timely manner, rejecting the stated reasons for good cause. This appeal followed. __________________ Maureen O’Connor, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and William D. Wellemeyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Master Chaunce’ Oden, pro se. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its judgment entry. 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 11, 74 Ohio St. 3d 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-oden-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack