State v. Eads
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. Eads, Appellant. [Cite as State v. Eads (1995), Ohio St.3d .] (No. 95-146 -- Submitted April 24, 1995 -- Decided August 23, 1995.) 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 establish good cause for failing to file his application within ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) and proposed assignments of error fail to establish colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 62775. Appellant, Daniel T. Eads, was convicted of murder. On direct appeal as of right, the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County unanimously affirmed the conviction. State v. Eads (July 15, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 62775, unreported, 1993 WL 266947. We overruled Eads' motion for leave to appeal and claimed appeal of right on November 17, 1993. State v. Eads, No. 93-1751. On April 18, 1994, Eads filed an application for reopening his appeal under App. R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel. 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). The court of appeals also held that appellant's five proposed assignments of error failed to establish a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Further, Eads failed to demonstrate that circumstances render the application of res judicata to his prayer for reopening unjust. Appellant appeals the denial to this court. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Karen L. Johnson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for appellee. Daniel Eads, pro se. Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals 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.
