State v. Cook
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Cook, Appellant. 2 [Cite as State v. Cook (1996), ___Ohio St.3d ___.] 3 Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from 4 judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective 5 assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when 6 applicant fails to establish good cause for failure to file the 7 motion within ninety days from journalization of the appellate 8 judgment, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b). 9 (No. 95-1762--Submitted December 5, 1995--Decided February 14, 10 11 12 1996.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C- 900676. 13 Appellant, Derrick Cook, was convicted of aggravated murder, 14 aggravated robbery and kidnapping, and sentenced to death in 1990. The 15 court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. State v. Cook (Apr. 16 8, 1992), Hamilton App. No. C-900676, unreported, 1992 WL 74199. On 17 direct appeal as of right, we also affirmed. State v. Cook (1992), 65 Ohio 18 St.3d 516, 605 N.E.2d 70. 19 conviction relief were dismissed, and the judgment of dismissal was Subsequently, Cook s petitions for post- 1 affirmed by the court of appeals. State v. Cook (Dec. 29, 1995), Hamilton 2 App. No. C-950090, unreported. 3 It is undisputed that in April 1995, Cook filed with the court of 4 appeals an application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B) and State v. 5 Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, alleging ineffective 6 assistance of his appellate counsel. 7 application, finding that appellant had failed to establish good cause for not 8 filing the application to reopen within ninety days from the journalization of 9 the appellate judgment, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b). 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 The court of appeals denied the __________________________ Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Christian J. Schaefer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and John B. Heasley, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. __________________________ Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. Judgment affirmed. 1 2 3 4 MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. WRIGHT, J., dissents.
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.
