From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Mendoza

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Wood County
May 26, 2011
2011 Ohio 2574 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)

Opinion

No. WD-10-008.

Decided: May 26, 2011.

Trial Court No. 2008CR0529.

Mollie B. Hojnicki, for appellant.


DECISION AND JUDGMENT


{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on appellant Cory Mendoza's motion for appointment of counsel for the purpose of appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio. In State v. Mendoza, 6th Dist. No. WD-10-008, 2011-Ohio-1971, we affirmed appellant's judgment of conviction of two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, two counts of aggravated vehicular assault, one count of operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence, one count of endangering children, one count of failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer and one count of failure to stop after an accident.

{¶ 2} An indigent defendant has the right to appointed counsel at every stage of criminal proceedings through an appeal as of right. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; Section 10, Article I, Ohio Constitution; Crim. R. 44. However, there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a discretionary appeal. Ross v. Moffitt (1974), 417 U.S. 600; State v. Watts (1989), 57 Ohio App.3d 32, 33.

{¶ 3} An appeal by appellant to the Ohio Supreme Court in this case would be discretionary. S.Ct.Prac. R. II(1)(A)(1)-(3). Thus, appointment of counsel is unwarranted. This motion is therefore not well-taken and is denied.

MOTION DENIED.

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J., Arlene Singer, J., Thomas J. Osowik, P.J., CONCUR.


Summaries of

State v. Mendoza

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Wood County
May 26, 2011
2011 Ohio 2574 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
Case details for

State v. Mendoza

Case Details

Full title:State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Cory Mendoza aka Waltz, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Wood County

Date published: May 26, 2011

Citations

2011 Ohio 2574 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)