Case Information
*1
[This decision has been published in
Ohio Official Reports
at
T HE TATE OF A PPELLEE
v
. HEPPARD A PPELLANT [Cite as
State v. Sheppard
,
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment of
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel— Court of appeals’ denial of application affirmed albeit for different reasons—Application denied when applicant fails to raise a genuine issue as to whether he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal before the court of appeals as required under App.R. 26(B)(5).
(No. 00-1861—Submitted January 30, 2001—Decided April 11, 2001.) A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, Nos. C-950402 and C-950744.
Per Curiam
.
Appellant, Bobby T. Sheppard, was convicted of the aggravated
murder of Dennis Willhide and sentenced to death. He was also convicted and
sentenced to prison for aggravated robbery. The court of appeals affirmed the
convictions and sentence.
State v. Sheppard
(June 11, 1997), Hamilton App. Nos.
C-950402 and C-950744, unreported. On direct appeal as of right, we also
affirmed.
State v. Sheppard
(1998),
{¶ 3}
On March 9, 2000, Sheppard filed an application with the court of
appeals to reopen his appeal from his convictions pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and
State v. Murnahan
(1992),
{¶ 4}
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals, albeit for different
reasons. The two-pronged analysis found in
Strickland v. Washington
(1984), 466
U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, is the appropriate standard to assess
whether Sheppard has raised a “genuine issue” as to the ineffectiveness of appellate
counsel in his request to reopen under App.R. 26(B)(5).
State v. Spivey
Ohio St.3d 24, 25,
of establishing that there was a ‘genuine issue’ as to whether he has a ‘colorable claim’ of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal.” State v. Spivey , 84 Ohio St.3d at 25, 701 N.E.2d at 697. We have reviewed Sheppard’s assertions of deficient performance by appellate counsel and find that Sheppard has failed to raise “a genuine issue as to whether [he] was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal” before the court of appeals as required under App.R. 26(B)(5). Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
January Term, 2001
Judgment affirmed M OYER C.J., D OUGLAS R ESNICK , F.E. WEENEY , P FEIFER , OOK and L UNDBERG TRATTON JJ., concur.
__________________
Michael K. Allen , Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and William E. Breyer , Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
David H. Bodiker , Ohio Public Defender, and Jane Perry , Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
