Opinion

State v. Brown

  • 74 Ohio St. 3d 523
  • 1996 Ohio 44
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Feb 14, 1996
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 35.0%

The opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 523.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BROWN, APPELLANT.

[Cite as State v. Brown, 1996-Ohio-44.]

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 failure

to file motion within ninety days from journalization of the appellate

judgment, as required by App.R. 26(B).

(No. 95-2122—Submitted December 12, 1995—Decided February 14, 1996.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA 8175.

__________________

{¶ 1} Appellant, Ronald Perry Brown, was convicted of rape and gross

sexual imposition. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. State

v. Brown (Apr. 13, 1984), Montgomery App. No. CA 8175, unreported.

{¶ 2} He filed an application for reopening his appeal on July 24, 1995,

alleging as good cause for failure to file the application within ninety days of

journalization of the judgment sought to be reopened, as required by App.R. 26(B),

that a right to reopen was not announced before 1992, and after 1992, he did not

wish to jeopardize his first chance for parole by having a case pending. The court

of appeals rejected this reasoning, and appellant appealed to this court.

__________________

Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and

Carley J. Ingram, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Ronald Perry Brown, pro se.

__________________

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam.

{¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. In this court,

appellant makes no attempt to establish good cause, but instead argues the questions

he wanted the court of appeals to hear, but which it did not hear. The application

was rejected for failure to state a good cause for late filing. That is the issue before

this court. Since appellant does not even address the issue, the judgment of the

court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and

COOK, JJ., concur.

__________________

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.