State v. Hutchinson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Hutchinson, Appellant. 2 [Cite as State v. Hutchinson (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 3 Appellate procedure -- Applications for reopening appeal from 4 judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective 5 assistance of appellate counsel -- Applications denied when 6 none of applicant s claims has merit. 7 (No 95-1969--Submitted January 9, 1996--Decided February 28, 8 9 10 1996.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA 13993. 11 Appellant, Rayfield Hutchinson, was convicted of aggravated robbery 12 with a prior aggravated felony specification and sentenced to prison in April 13 1993. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v. 14 Hutchinson (May 10, 1995), Montgomery App. No. CA 13993, unreported, 15 1995 WL 276753, appeal dismissed (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1409, 655 16 N.E.2d 187. 17 Subsequently, appellant filed with the court of appeals applications to 18 reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of his 19 appellate counsel. The court of appeals found that none of appellant s 1 claims had merit and denied his requests to reopen his appeal. Appellant 2 appeals that denial to this court. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 _______________________________________ Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Laura G. Ulrich, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Rayfield Hutchinson, pro se. _________________________________________ Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. 10 11 12 Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. 13 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
