State v. Fautenberry, 96-2521

Decision Date30 April 1997
Docket NumberNo. 96-2521,96-2521
Citation677 N.E.2d 1194,78 Ohio St.3d 320
PartiesThe STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. FAUTENBERRY, Appellant.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W. Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Lori Ann McGinnis and Stephen P. Hardwick, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgments of the court of appeals denying appellant's application for reopening and motion for reconsideration for the same reasons articulated by the court of appeals. Further, appellant has failed to establish the existence of a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. We reject all of appellant's propositions of law raised before this court.

Judgments affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, RESNICK, FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, Sr., PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Fautenberry v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • January 25, 2008
    ...of appellate counsel during his direct appeal to that court. That motion was summarily denied in May 1996. See State v. Fautenberry, 78 Ohio St.3d 320, 677 N.E.2d 1194 (1997). In July 1996, Fautenberry filed, pursuant to Ohio App. R. 26(B), an application for reopening (i.e., a motion for d......
  • State v. Jay Scott
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • March 5, 1998
    ... ... a half. This failure alone provides sufficient reason to deny ... the application. State v. Fautenberry (1997), 78 ... Ohio St.3d 320, 677 N.E.2d 1194; State v. Hill ... (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 174, 677 N.E.2d 337 and State v ... ...
  • State v. Sizemore
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • April 28, 1998
    ...counsel was presented, or because the applicant had the opportunity to appeal the issue to the Supreme Court. State v. Fautenberry (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 320, 677 N.E.2d 1194; State v. Hill (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 174, 677 N.E.2d 337; State v. Scott (Jan. 28, 1998), motion No. 83321, unreporte......
  • State v. Myron Newsome
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • March 27, 1998
    ... ... apply the doctrine when the issue has actually been presented ... to the supreme court. State v. Fautenberry (1997), ... 78 Ohio St.3d 320, 677 N.E.2d 1194; State v. Hill ... (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 174, 677 N.E.2d 337; Searles; ... Timothy ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT