State v. Mancini
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO **** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING **** 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. Mancini, Appellant. [Cite as State v. Mancini (1994), Ohio St.3d .] Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when filed more than ninety days after effective date of App.R. 26(B). (No. 94-1834 -- Submitted October 24, 1994 -- Decided December 21, 1994.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 63892. Appellant, John Mancini, pled guilty to and was convicted of robbery, theft, and possession of drugs, and was sentenced to prison in 1991. In 1992, he filed a delayed appeal, but the court of appeals affirmed the conviction in January 1993. Appellant's jurisdictional motion to this court was overruled. State v. Mancini (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 1507, 613N.E.2d 1045 [certiorari denied ( ), U.S. , S.Ct. , L.Ed.2d .] On June 16, 1994 he applied to the court of appeals pursuant to App. R. 26(B) to reopen the appeal from the judgment of conviction alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to argue that appellant's use of prescription drugs affected the voluntary nature of his plea, that his Fifth Amendment rights, were impaired when the trial court failed to determine that they were affirmatively waived, and that the trial court failed to establish a factual basis for the guilty plea. The court of appeals denied the application on the basis that the appellate counsel's handling of the issues was not ineffective, and that appellant had not shown good cause for not filing his application within ninety days after App. R. 26(B) took effect. Appellant appeals the denial to this court. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and George J. Sadd, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. John Mancini, pro se. Per Curiam. The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated therein. Judgment affirmed. Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., 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.
