From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Peeples

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 23, 1994
71 Ohio St. 3d 349 (Ohio 1994)

Summary

affirming denial of application to reopen for reasons that included failure to comply with the ten-page limit of the rule.

Summary of this case from State v. Mays

Opinion

No. 94-1967

Submitted November 15, 1994 —

Decided December 23, 1994.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 54708.

Appellant, Kavin Peeples, pled guilty to and was convicted of attempted murder in 1988, after changing his plea from not guilty to guilty. Appellant appealed, arguing that the trial court had failed to ascertain that the guilty plea was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. State v. Peeples (Jan. 3, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 54708, unreported, 1988 WL 141343. Following several attempts to gain postconviction relief, the trial court resentenced appellant in 1991, shortening his minimum sentence from eight to seven years. At the resentencing hearing, appellant filed a pro se motion to reopen the change-of-plea issue, which the trial court denied. Appellant appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. State v. Peeples (Dec. 31, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 61544, unreported, 1992 WL 390076.

On October 15, 1993, appellant filed an application to reopen his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B), again raising the change-of-plea issue. It is not clear whether appellant raised the issue in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel, which is the purpose of App.R. 26(B); however, the court of appeals found that appellant failed to show good cause for filing the application more than ninety days after the appellate decision complained of or after the effective date of App.R. 26(B), as required by App.R. 26(B)(1), exceeded the ten-page limit of App.R. 26(B)(4), and that the issue was res judicata. Appellant appeals from this decision.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and L. Christopher Frey, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Kavin Peeples, pro se.


The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

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


Summaries of

State v. Peeples

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 23, 1994
71 Ohio St. 3d 349 (Ohio 1994)

affirming denial of application to reopen for reasons that included failure to comply with the ten-page limit of the rule.

Summary of this case from State v. Mays

affirming denial of application to reopen for reasons that included failure to comply with the ten-page limit of the rule.

Summary of this case from State v. Woods
Case details for

State v. Peeples

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. PEEPLES, APPELLANT

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 23, 1994

Citations

71 Ohio St. 3d 349 (Ohio 1994)
643 N.E.2d 1112

Citing Cases

Van Hook v. Anderson

Even though he filed his motion for reconsideration on April 8, 1993, over two and a half months prior to the…

State v. Woods

This procedural defect provides sufficient grounds for dismissing the application for reopening. State v.…