STATE v. HUMPHREY, 72 Ohio St.3d 315 (1995)

649 N.E.2d 1225

No. 94-2736Supreme Court of Ohio.Submitted March 21, 1995 —
Decided June 14, 1995.

Page 316

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 12189.[1]

Appellant, Paul M. Humphrey, was convicted of aggravated robbery with a firearm specification and having a weapon while under disability with a firearm specification and prior offense of violence specifications. The Court of Appeals for Montgomery County affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v. Humphrey (Jan. 13, 1987), Montgomery App. Nos. 9912 and 9900, unreported, 1987 WL 5527.

On October 5, 1994, more than seven and one-half years after his convictions were affirmed, appellant filed an application to reopen his appeal under State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise the following issues: (1) the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the definition of “firearm,” (2) trial counsel’s ineffectiveness for failure to object to an allegedly prejudicial statement by the prosecution, (3) trial counsel’s ineffectiveness for failure to request a continuance to produce an alibi witness, and (4) trial counsel’s ineffectiveness for failure to object to the in-court identification of appellant by the victim.

The court of appeals held that appellant had failed to show good cause for an untimely filing of the application under App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) and denied the application. Appellant now appeals to this court.

Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and George A. Katchmer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Paul M. Humphrey, pro se.

Per Curiam.

The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed on authority of State v. Reddick (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 647 N.E.2d 784.

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.

Page 317