State v. Porter
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Deborah J. Barrett, 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. The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Porter, Appellant. [Cite as State v. Porter (1994), Ohio St.3d .] Appellate procedure -- App.R. 26(B) -- Application for reopening appeal from judgment of conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel -Application denied when motion is untimely and fails to establish good cause for the untimeliness. (No. 94-865 -- Submitted August 17, 1994 -- Decided November 9, 1994.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 57251. Appellant, Paul Porter, was apparently convicted of one count of aggravated drug trafficking, one count of possessing criminal tools, and one count of drug abuse. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County affirmed the conviction. In 1993, he applied to the court of appeals under App. R. 26(B) to reopen the appeal from the judgment of conviction, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application on the basis that appellant's motion was untimely and failed to establish good cause for the untimeliness. Appellant appeals the denial to this court. Paul Porter, pro se. Per Curiam. The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated bythe court of appeals. Judgment affirmed. Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Wright, J., dissents.
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.
