Summary
holding application to reopen appeal untimely where it was filed more than ninety days following the July 1, 1993, effective date of amended Ohio App. Rule 26(B)
Summary of this case from Franklin v. AndersonOpinion
No. 94-1834
Submitted October 24, 1994 —
Decided December 21, 1994.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 63892.
Appellant, John Mancini, pled guilty to and was convicted of robbery, theft, and possession of drugs, and was sentenced to prison in 1991. In 1992, he filed a delayed appeal, but the court of appeals affirmed the conviction in January 1993. Appellant's jurisdictional motion to this court was overruled. State v. Mancini (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 1507, 613 N.E.2d 1045. On June 16, 1994, he applied to the court of appeals pursuant to App.R. 26(B) to reopen the appeal from the judgment of conviction, alleging that appellate counsel was ineffective for failure to argue that appellant's use of prescription drugs affected the voluntary nature of his plea, that his Fifth Amendment rights were impaired when the trial court failed to determine that they were affirmatively waived, and that the trial court failed to establish a factual basis for the guilty plea. The court of appeals denied the application on the basis that the appellate counsel's handling of the issues was not ineffective, and that appellant had not shown good cause for not filing his application within ninety days after App.R. 26(B) took effect. Appellant appeals the denial to this court.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and George J. Sadd, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. John Mancini, pro se.
The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated therein.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.