State v. Carter, No. 01-977.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam. |
| Citation | 757 NE 2d 362,93 Ohio St.3d 581 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CARTER, APPELLANT. |
| Decision Date | 14 November 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-977. |
93 Ohio St.3d 581
757 NE 2d 362
v.
CARTER, APPELLANT
No. 01-977.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted September 18, 2001.
Decided November 14, 2001.
Michael K. Allen, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W. Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Keith A. Yeazel, for appellant.
Per Curiam.
Appellant, Cedric Carter, was convicted of the aggravated murder of Frances Messinger, and sentenced to death. The court of appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence. State v. Carter (Nov. 3, 1993), Hamilton App. No. C-920604, unreported, 1993 WL 512859. We also affirmed Carter's convictions and death sentence. State v. Carter (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 651 N.E.2d 965, certiorari denied (1995), 516 U.S. 1014, 116 S.Ct. 575, 133 L.Ed.2d 498.
Subsequently, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to deny Carter's petition for postconviction relief. State v. Carter (Nov. 14, 1997), Hamilton App. No. C-960718, unreported, 1997 WL 705487. We refused to accept Carter's appeal of that decision. State v. Carter (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 1467, 690 N.E.2d 1287.
On June 9, 1999, Carter filed an application with the court of appeals to reopen his initial appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, alleging ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel before the court of appeals in his first appeal. However, the court of appeals
On July 19, 2000, Carter requested that the court of appeals appoint counsel for him to prepare and file an application to reopen his direct appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B). The court of appeals denied Carter's motion. State v. Carter (Aug. 10, 2000), Hamilton App. No. C-920604, unreported.
On September 28, 2000, Carter's present counsel filed a second application to reopen his initial appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v. Murnahan. The court of appeals denied Carter's motion to reopen his direct appeal on the basis that App.R. 26(B) "makes no provision for filing successive applications to reopen." State v. Carter (Apr. 9, 2001), Hamilton App. No. C-920604, unreported. The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Carter raises five issues in this appeal. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin v. Anderson, No. 03-3636.
...Ohio St.3d 150, 761 N.E.2d 18, 19-20 (2002). See State v. Moore, 93 Ohio St.3d 649, 758 N.E.2d 1130, 1132-33 (2001); State v. Carter, 93 Ohio St.3d 581, 757 N.E.2d 362, 363-64 (2001); State v. Biros, 93 Ohio St.3d 250, 754 N.E.2d 805, 806-07 (2001); State v. Brooks, 92 Ohio St.3d 537, 751 N......
-
Carter v. Mitchell, No. 13-3996
...application in 2000. The Ohio Court of Appeals denied this application as well, and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. State v. Carter , 93 Ohio St.3d 581, 757 N.E.2d 362 (2001).In 2003, Carter filed another petition for post-conviction relief in Ohio state court, in which he argued that he w......
-
Carter v. Mitchell, No. 06–4238.
...Appeals again denied this application, and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed this decision on the basis of res judicata. State v. Carter, 93 Ohio St.3d 581, 757 N.E.2d 362 (2001). In 2003, Carter filed a second petition for post-conviction relief in the state trial court, arguing that his men......
-
Landrum v. Anderson, No. C-1-96-641.
...grounds and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to decide that question and found no merit to the application. • In State v. Carter, 93 Ohio St.3d 581, 757 N.E.2d 362 (2001), the court dealt with an appeal from denial of a second application for delayed reopening and concluded that the good cau......
-
Franklin v. Anderson, 03-3636.
...Ohio St.3d 150, 761 N.E.2d 18, 19-20 (2002). See State v. Moore, 93 Ohio St.3d 649, 758 N.E.2d 1130, 1132-33 (2001); State v. Carter, 93 Ohio St.3d 581, 757 N.E.2d 362, 363-64 (2001); State v. Biros, 93 Ohio St.3d 250, 754 N.E.2d 805, 806-07 (2001); State v. Brooks, 92 Ohio St.3d 537, 751 N......
-
Carter v. Mitchell, 13-3996
...application in 2000. The Ohio Court of Appeals denied this application as well, and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. State v. Carter , 93 Ohio St.3d 581, 757 N.E.2d 362 (2001).In 2003, Carter filed another petition for post-conviction relief in Ohio state court, in which he argued that he w......
-
Carter v. Mitchell, 06–4238.
...Appeals again denied this application, and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed this decision on the basis of res judicata. State v. Carter, 93 Ohio St.3d 581, 757 N.E.2d 362 (2001). In 2003, Carter filed a second petition for post-conviction relief in the state trial court, arguing that his men......
-
Landrum v. Anderson, No. C-1-96-641.
...grounds and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to decide that question and found no merit to the application. • In State v. Carter, 93 Ohio St.3d 581, 757 N.E.2d 362 (2001), the court dealt with an appeal from denial of a second application for delayed reopening and concluded that the good cau......