State v. Rozanski

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Rozanski, 2002-Ohio-5501.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SANDUSKY COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. S-02-007 Appellee Trial Court No. 01-CR-685 v. David W. Rozanski DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Appellant Decided: October 8, 2002 * * * * * Jeffrey M. Gamso, for appellant. * * * * * PIETRYKOWSKI, P.J. {¶1} This case is before the court on appellant David Rozanski's motion to reopen his appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B). Appellant's appeal was dismissed by this court on July 9, 2002 when his appointed counsel failed to file a brief. For the reasons that follow, we find the application well-taken. {¶2} App.R. 26(B) provides, in pertinent part: {¶3} "(1) A of the reopening defendant appeal in from a the criminal judgment case of may apply for conviction and sentence, based on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. An application for reopening shall be filed in the court of appeals where the appeal was decided within ninety days from journalization of the appellate judgment unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time. {¶4} "***. {¶5} "(5) An application for reopening shall be granted if there is a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal. {¶6} "***." {¶7} See, also, State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶8} In the instant case, where appointed appellate counsel failed to file a brief on appellant's behalf, we find that a genuine issue exists as to whether appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel. {¶9} Upon consideration, we find appellant's application for reopening well-taken and it is granted. Appellant is ordered to file a brief within 20 days of the date of this entry. APPLICATION GRANTED. State of Ohio v. David W. Rozanski C.A. No. S-02-007 Peter M. Handwork, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Melvin L. Resnick, J. Mark L. Pietrykowski, P.J. CONCUR. 2. ____________________________ JUDGE ____________________________ JUDGE 3.

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.