[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 632.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. HUTCHINSON, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Hutchinson, 1996-Ohio-239.]

Appellate procedure—Applications for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel— Applications denied when none of applicant’s claims has merit. (No 95-1969—Submitted January 9, 1996—Decided February 28, 1996.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA 13993. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Rayfield Hutchinson, was convicted of aggravated robbery with a prior aggravated felony specification and sentenced to prison in April 1993.

The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v. Hutchinson (May 10, 1995), Montgomery App. No. CA 13993, unreported, 1995 WL 276753, appeal dismissed (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1409, 655 N.E.2d 187. {¶ 2} Subsequently, appellant filed with the court of appeals applications to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel. The court of appeals found that none of appellant’s claims had merit and denied his requests to reopen his appeal. Appellant appeals that denial to this court. __________________ Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Laura G. Ulrich, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Rayfield Hutchinson, pro se. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Judgment affirmed.

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