State v. Mosley
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Mosley, Appellant. 2 [Cite as State v. Mosley (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 s claims are not well taken. 7 (No. 95-2589 -- Submitted February 20, 1996 -- Decided April 17, 8 9 10 1996.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 94APA12-1707. 11 Appellant, Mark H. Mosley, was convicted of felonious assault on 12 November 9, 1994 and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Upon 13 appeal, the conviction was affirmed. State v. Mosley (July 13, 1995), 14 Franklin App. No. 94APA12-1707, unreported, 1995 WL 422647. 15 Appellant s appeal to this court was later dismissed. State v. Mosley, 16 (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1475, 657 N.E.2d 788. 17 Meanwhile, appellant timely filed an application for reopening before 18 the court of appeals pursuant to App. R.26(B), alleging ineffective 19 assistance of appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application, 1 finding that appellant s claims of ineffective asssistance of counsel were not 2 well taken. Appellant appeals that denial to this court. 3 4 Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joyce S. Anderson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 5 Mark H. Mosley, pro se. 6 Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the 7 reasons stated in its memorandum decision. 8 9 10 11 Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. WRIGHT, J., not participating. 2
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.
