State v. Paris
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Paris, Appellant. 2 [Cite as State v. Paris (1996), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 3 Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from judgment 4 and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate 5 counsel -- Application denied when applicant fails to show good 6 cause for failing to file his application within ninety days after 7 journalization of the court of appeals decision affirming the 8 conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B). 9 (No. 95-2425 -- Submitted June 25, 1996 -- Decided August 7, 1996.) 10 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Clark County, No. 2836. 11 In June 1991, appellant, David Paris, was convicted of felonious assault and 12 sentenced to prison. In March 1992, the court of appeals affirmed the conviction 13 and sentence. State v. Paris (Mar. 26, 1992), Clark App. No. 2836, unreported, 14 1992 WL 63387. 15 It is undisputed that Paris filed an application in August 1995 with the court 16 of appeals to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance 17 of appellate counsel. In October 1995, the court of appeals denied appellant s 18 motion to reopen because Paris failed to file his application within ninety days of 19 the journalization of the appellate judgment, as required by App.R. 26 (B). 1 Further, the court found that Paris has failed to show good cause for his delay in 2 filing his application to reopen his appeal. Appellant appeals the denial to this court. 3 __________________________________ 4 Stephen A. Schumaker, Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Douglas M. 5 6 Rastatter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, David Klaus and Angela Wilson 7 8 Miller, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant. __________________________________ 9 10 Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons 11 stated in its decision. See State v. White (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 91, 641 N.E.2d 12 787. 13 Judgment affirmed. 14 MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 15 STRATTON, JJ., concur. 16 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.
