State v. Hawkins

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

74 Ohio St.3d 530

.]




            THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. HAWKINS, APPELLANT.
                      [Cite as State v. Hawkins, 

1996-Ohio-24

.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
        conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
        Application denied when applicant fails to show good cause for filing
        application more than ninety days from journalization of the appellate
        judgment, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).
    (No. 95-1813—Submitted January 9, 1996—Decided February 14, 1996.)
  APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, Nos. C-900092 and
                                        C-910017.)
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Shawn L. Hawkins, was convicted of two 1989 aggravated
murders and two counts of aggravated robbery and sentenced to death. The court
of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. State v. Hawkins (Dec. 18, 1991),
Hamilton App. Nos. C-900092 and C-910017, unreported, 

1991 WL 270633

. On
direct appeal as of right, we also affirmed. State v. Hawkins (1993), 

66 Ohio St.3d 339

, 

612 N.E.2d 1227

.
        {¶ 2} In April 1994, Hawkins filed with the court of appeals an application
to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of his
appellate counsel.      The court of appeals denied the application, finding that
Hawkins had “failed to show good cause for filing his application more than ninety
days after this Court’s decision was journalized [December 18, 1991], as required
by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).”
        {¶ 3} Hawkins appeals the court of appeals’ denial of his petition. Hawkins
also asks for reversal because he claims that the court of appeals’ decision to deny
his application for reopening was decided by only a single judge of that court.
                                  SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




                                   __________________
          Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and L. Susan
Laker, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
          David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Laurence E. Komp, Kevin L.
Fahey and Cynthia A. Yost, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.
                                   __________________
          Per Curiam.
          {¶ 4} We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reason stated in
its entry. Further, we reject Hawkins’ unsupported assumption that fewer than three
judges of the court of appeals decided to deny his application for reopening. The
fact that only the presiding judge of the court of appeals signed the entry does not
impeach the entry. App.R. 22(A) requires only “a journal entry signed by a judge
of the court.” Hawkins has not contradicted the presumption of regularity accorded
all judicial proceedings. State v. Sweet (1995), 

72 Ohio St.3d 375

, 

650 N.E.2d 450

;
Coleman v. McGettrick (1965), 

2 Ohio St.2d 177, 180

, 

31 O.O.2d 326, 328

, 

207 N.E.2d 552, 554

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




                                            2