State v. Whalen

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Whalen

1996 Ohio 6, 74 Ohio St. 3d 633

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1996

Docket1995-2000

StatusPublished

This text of 1996 Ohio 6 (State v. Whalen) 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. Whalen, 1996 Ohio 6, 74 Ohio St. 3d 633 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 633.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. WHALEN, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Whalen, 1996-Ohio-6.] 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 failure to file the motion within ninety days after journalization of the court of appeals’ decision affirming the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B). (No. 95-2000—Submitted January 23, 1996—Decided Februay 28, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No C-930367. __________________ {¶ 1} In April 1993, appellant, David M. Whalen, Jr., was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, with firearms specifications, three counts of robbery, with firearms specifications, and one count of theft, and was sentenced to prison. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. State v. Whalen (Sept. 7, 1994), Hamilton App. No. C-930367, unreported, 1994 WL 481737. {¶ 2} The parties agree that in June 1995, appellant 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 show good cause for filing his application more than ninety days after this Court’s judgment was journalized, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).” Appellant appeals that denial to this court. __________________ Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W. Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. David M. Whalen, Jr., pro se. __________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam. {¶ 3} We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its 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 633.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. WHALEN, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Whalen, 1996-Ohio-6.] 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 failure to file the motion within ninety days after journalization of the court of appeals’ decision affirming the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B). (No. 95-2000—Submitted January 23, 1996—Decided Februay 28, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No C-930367. __________________ {¶ 1} In April 1993, appellant, David M. Whalen, Jr., was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, with firearms specifications, three counts of robbery, with firearms specifications, and one count of theft, and was sentenced to prison. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. State v. Whalen (Sept. 7, 1994), Hamilton App. No. C-930367, unreported, 1994 WL 481737. {¶ 2} The parties agree that in June 1995, appellant 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 show good cause for filing his application more than ninety days after this Court’s judgment was journalized, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).” Appellant appeals that denial to this court. __________________ Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W. Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. David M. Whalen, Jr., pro se. __________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam. {¶ 3} We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its 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 6, 74 Ohio St. 3d 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-whalen-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack