State v. Bennett
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Bennett, 2009-Ohio-343.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90815 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. COLLINS J. BENNETT, JR. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED APPLICATION FOR REOPENING MOTION NO. 414486 LOWER COURT NO. CR-482881 COMMON PLEAS COURT RELEASE DATE: January 26, 2009 2 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: T. Allan Regas Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Collins J. Bennett, Jr., pro se Inmate No. 520-832 Mansfield Correctional Inst. P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901-0788 MELODY J. STEWART, J.: {¶ 1} Collins J. Bennett, Jr. has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B). Bennett is attempting to revisit the appellate judgment rendered by this court in State v. Bennett (Jan. 14, 2008), Cuyahoga App. No. 90815, which denied his pro se motion for leave to file a delayed appeal. For the following reasons, we are prevented from granting Bennett s application. {¶ 2} Initially, we find that App.R. 26(B) is not applicable to the facts pertinent to Bennett s appeal. No appellate judgment, which reviewed Bennett s plea of guilty to four counts of involuntary manslaughter, has been announced and journalized by 3 this court. Thus, we are prevented from considering Bennett s application for reopening brought pursuant to App.R. 26(B). State v. Skaggs (May 12, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 76301, reopening disallowed (Sept. 21, 1999), Motion No. 7505. See, also, State v. Loomer, 76 Ohio St.3d 398, 1996-Ohio-59, 667 N.E.2d 1209; State v. Halliwell (Jan 29, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 70369, reopening disallowed (Jan 29, 1999), Motion No. 00187; State v. Fields (Feb. 29, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 68906, reopening disallowed (Sep. 5, 1997), Motion No. 84867; State v. Williams (Oct. 31, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69936, reopening disallowed (May 7, 1997), Motion No. 82993. {¶ 3} In addition, an application for reopening may be granted by this court only upon a showing that there exists a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of appellate counsel on appeal. See App.R. 26(B)(5). No appellate counsel was involved in the underlying appeal, since Bennett filed a motion for a delayed appeal, pro se. Thus, Bennett cannot establish a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. State v. McCauley, Cuyahoga App. No. 81328, 2005-Ohio-6093. Bennett is also precluded from arguing his own ineffectiveness on appeal vis-a-vis his pro se representation. State v. Boone (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 275, 683 N.E.2d 67; State v. Smith (Nov. 29, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79292, reopening disallowed (Mar. 8, 2002), Motion No. 36058; State v. Bobo (Jan. 16, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 60013, reopening disallowed (Apr. 10, 1996), Motion No. 69762. 4 {¶ 4} Accordingly, we deny the application for reopening. MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE CHRISTINE T. MCMONAGLE, P.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
