State v. Goines
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Goines, Appellant. 2 [Cite as State v. Goines (1996), _____ 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 6 applicant fails to establish ineffective assistance of counsel on 7 the record presented. 8 (No. 95-1325--Submitted October 24, 1995--Decided January 31, 9 1996.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95APA02- 10 11 12 204. Appellant, Larry D. Goines, was convicted by a jury of two counts of 13 robbery, and sentenced accordingly. The court of appeals affirmed his 14 convictions and sentence. State v. Goines (Sept. 23, 1993), Franklin App. 15 No. 93AP-654, unreported. 16 Appellant then filed with the court of appeals a motion for a delayed 17 appeal or, in the alternative, motion for delayed reconsideration. The appeals 18 court treated this as an application to reopen pursuant to App.R. 26(B), 19 because, inter alia, the appellant had argued that his appellate counsel was 1 ineffective. The court of appeals denied the application, finding that 2 appellant had failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel on the 3 record presented. This appeal followed. 4 Larry D. Goines, pro se. 5 Stephen M. Miller, for appellee. 6 Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the 7 following reasons. Like the court of appeals, we disregard appellant s 8 propositions of law that are not related to the claim of ineffective assistance 9 of appellate counsel. 10 Appellant s fourth proposition of law asserts ineffective assistance of 11 appellate counsel. The gist of the claim seems to be that appellate counsel 12 was ineffective for not arguing that trial counsel was ineffective because he 13 did not vigorously attack two eyewitnesses identifications of appellant as the 14 robber and attempt to establish appellant s brother as the robber. Like the 15 court of appeals, we hold that appellant s record fails to establish that trial 16 counsel was ineffective, and, therefore, appellant has failed to demonstrate 17 that the genuine issue required by App.R. 26(B)(5) exists. 18 Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 2 1 Judgment affirmed. 2 MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and 3 COOK, JJ., concur. 4 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.
