[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 9.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. ELKINS, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Elkins, 1995-Ohio-250.]

Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel— Application denied when applicant fails to show good cause for failure to file the motion within ninety days from journalization of the appellate judgment, as required by App.R. 26(B). (No. 94-2086—Submitted July 26, 1995—Decided October 25, 1995.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. CA-8972. __________________ {¶ 1} On July 21, 1994, appellant, Ronald Dale Elkins, filed with the court of appeals an application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Almost fourteen months had passed since the affirmance of his conviction, and the court of appeals “overruled” the application without stating its reasons for doing so, as required by App. R. 26(B)(6).

We remanded the case for compliance with that rule. State v. Elkins (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 576, 645 N.E.2d 1245. On remand, the court of appeals found that appellant had not shown good cause for filing his application to reopen more than ninety days after the journalization of the appellate judgment, as required by App. R.26(B)(2)(b), and also reviewed the merits of Elkins’ claims and concluded that he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. {¶ 2} Appellant appeals the denial to this court. ______________ Ronald Dale Elkins, pro se. ______________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam. {¶ 3} We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., CONCUR. __________________