State v. Mullins
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Mullins, Appellant. 2 [Cite as State v. Mullins (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 issue was reviewed in applicant s direct appeal and found to 7 be without merit. 8 (No. 96-316--Submitted May 21, 1996--Decided July 24, 1996.) 9 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No. 10 11 89CA27. Appellant, Herbert E. Mullins, was convicted in August 1989 on 12 charges of felonious assault and carrying a concealed weapon. Appellant 13 was thereafter sentenced to an indefinite term of imprisonment. Upon 14 appeal, the convictions were affirmed. State v. Mullins (Jan. 9, 1991), 15 Pickaway App. No. 89CA27, unreported. 16 On September 25, 1995, appellant filed an application for reopening 17 his appeal before the court of appeals pursuant to App.R. 26(B), alleging 18 ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Appellant asserted that appellate 19 counsel failed to raise specific instances of trial counsel s ineffectiveness. 1 However, the court of appeals denied the application on several grounds, 2 including its finding that the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel 3 was reviewed in appellant s direct appeal and was found to be without 4 merit. Therefore, the court of appeals held its prior decision to be res 5 judicata on the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court of 6 appeals then reviewed the merits of appellant s claim of ineffective 7 assistance of appellate counsel, and denied the claim under the tests 8 established in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 9 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, and State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 10 11 12 N.E.2d 373. Appellant appeals that denial to this court. Alan F. Sedlak, Pickaway County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 13 Ralph S. Silvestri, Jr., for appellant. 14 Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the 15 reasons stated in its decision and judgment entry. 16 17 18 Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., concur. 2 1 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.
