State v. Travis
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. Travis, Appellant. [Cite as State v. Travis (1995), 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 applicant fails to show good cause for failing to file his application within ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment -- App.R. 26(B)(2)(b). (No. 94-2694 -- Submitted March 21, 1995 -- Decided June 14, 1995.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 56825. According to the court of appeals' opinion, appellant, Bernard W. Travis, was convicted of kidnapping, rape, gross sexual imposition, felonious assault, and attempted rape. The convictions were affirmed on appeal by judgment entry of April 16, 1990. State v. Travis (Apr. 16, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 56825, unreported. On April 20, 1994, appellant sought to reopen his appeal under App. R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise various issues. The court of appeals denied the application, finding that appellant had failed to establish good cause for not filing the application to reopen within ninety days from the journalization of the appellate judgment, as required by App. R. 26(B)(2)(b), and also holding that the issues on the merits did not set forth colorable claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Appellant appeals the denial to this court. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and L. Christopher Frey, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Bernard W. Travis, pro se. Per Curiam. The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion. Judgment affirmed. Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, 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.
