State v. Young, Unpublished Decision (5-20-2003)
State v. Young, Unpublished Decision (5-20-2003)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} App.R. 26(B)(1) provides that "a defendant in a criminal case may apply for reopening of the appeal from the judgment ofconviction and sentence, based on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. An application for reopening shall be filed in the court of appeals where the appeal was decided within ninety days from journalization of the appellate judgment unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time." (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 3} In the case sub judice, no appellate judgment was announced and journalized by this court which reviewed Young's conviction and sentence as rendered in State v. Young, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-240608. See State v. Skaggs (May 12, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 76301, reopening disallowed (Sept. 21, 1999), Motion No. 07505;State v. Halliwell (Jan 28, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 70369, reopening disallowed (Jan. 29, 1999), Motion No. 00187. The appellate judgment that Young is attempting to reopen dealt with the trial court's granting of super shock probation, not an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence as required by App.R.26(B). No basis exists under App.R. 26(B) to reopen the appeal that was rendered in State v. Young (Nov. 29, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79113. Cf. State v. Loomer (1996),
{¶ 4} Accordingly, we deny Young's application for reopening.
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, P.J. and TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, J. CONCUR
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.