State v. Peeples
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Peeples, Appellant. 2 [Cite as State v. Peeples (1995), ____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 3 Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from 4 judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective 5 assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when no 6 colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel 7 stated. 8 (No. 95-740 -- Submitted July 26, 1995 -- Decided December 6, 9 1995.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No. 92 CA 10 11 7. 12 Appellant, Kavin L. Peeples, was convicted of aggravated murder in 13 violation of R.C. 2903.01(A) with specifications pursuant to R.C. 2929.04 14 (aggravated murder committed while the defendant was an inmate in a 15 detention facility). The Court of Appeals for Pickaway County affirmed the 16 judgment of the trial court. State v. Peeples (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 34, 17 640 N.E.2d 208. 18 19 On November 10, 1994, appellant filed an application requesting delayed reconsideration. The court of appeals treated this as an application 1 for reopening pursuant to App. R. 26(B), and found that, although appellant 2 had established good cause for not filing the application within the ninety 3 days required under App. R. 26(B), he had failed to state a colorable claim 4 of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Thus, the appellate court 5 denied appellant s application for delayed reconsideration, and this appeal 6 followed. 7 Kavin Peeples, pro se. 8 Per Curiam. In his application to reopen, appellant raised five 9 separate issues regarding appellate counsel s ineffectiveness. Each issue 10 involved appellant s alleged mental incapcity. However, the court of 11 appeals found that [t]he issue of Peeple s mental incapacity was previously 12 and properly raised on direct appeal. Specifically, the court of appeals 13 found that appellant s problem was not his appellate counsel s performance, 14 but the fact that his motion to suppress his confession to the murder was 15 denied at trial. We concur. 16 17 Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. Judgment affirmed. 18 2 1 2 MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., CONCUR. 3 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.
