The opinion
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Justine Michael, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.
Haynes, Appellant, v. Humphreys, Warden, Appellee.
[Cite as Haynes v. Humphreys (1992), Ohio St.3d .]
Habeas corpus -- Relief denied when adequate remedy at law
exists -- Claim of ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel -- Claim may be raised in application for
reconsideration in court of appeals or in direct
appeal to Supreme Court.
(No. 91-1447 -- Submitted April 7, 1992 -- Decided July
22, 1992.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No.
91CA005050.
Appellant, Donnell Haynes, was convicted of aggravated
robbery with a firearm specification and having weapons under
disability. He was sentenced to seven to twenty-five years of
imprisonment on the aggravated robbery charge, three years of
actual incarceration on the specification, and one year of
incarceration on the weapons charge, to be served concurrently
with the sentence for armed robbery. He appealed to the court
of appeals, but his appeal was dismissed for failure to file a
brief.
Thereafter, appellant sought a writ of habeas corpus in
the court of appeals, alleging ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel in violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights. The court of appeals dismissed the petition
because it did not allege lack of jurisdiction by the trial
court.
The cause is before the court upon an appeal as a matter
of right.
Donnell Haynes, pro se.
Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and Donald Gary Keyser,
for appellee.
Per Curiam. In In re Petition of Brown (1990), 49 Ohio
St.3d 222, 551 N.E.2d 954, and Manning v. Alexander (1990), 50
Ohio St.3d 127, 553 N.E.2d 264, we held that appeal, not habeas
corpus, was the proper remedy to claim ineffective assistance
of appellate counsel. In State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio
St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, we held at paragraph two of the
syllabus:
"Claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel may
be raised in an application for reconsideration in the court of
appeals or in a direct appeal to the Supreme Court pursuant to
Section 2(B)(2)(a)(iii), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution.
* * *"
Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals
based on Brown, Manning, and Murnahan, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown
and Resnick, JJ., concur.