From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Durr

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 19, 1997
674 N.E.2d 1379 (Ohio 1997)

Opinion

No. 96-1581

Submitted December 11, 1996 —

Decided February 19, 1997.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 57140.

Appellant, Darryl Durr, was convicted of one count of aggravated murder with specifications, and of kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and rape, each with a violence specification. He was sentenced to death. Upon appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. State v. Durr (Dec. 7, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 57140, unreported, 1989 WL 147626. This court also affirmed the convictions and sentences. State v. Durr (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 86, 568 N.E.2d 674.

Appellant filed an application with the court of appeals pursuant to State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, for delayed reconsideration, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application for lack of a colorable claim. State v. Durr (July 6, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 57140, unreported. Appellant's further appeal to this court was affirmed. State v. Durr (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 395, 643 N.E.2d 1147.

Subsequently, on May 10, 1995, appellant filed an application for reopening in the court of appeals pursuant to App. R. 26(B), again alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application finding it, inter alia, to be untimely and barred by res judicata. This appeal followed.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Carmen M. Marino, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and William S. Lazarow, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.


We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying appellant's application for reopening. Appellant has failed to establish the existence of a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. We further reject appellant's propositions of law raised before this court for the same reasons articulated by the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

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


Summaries of

State v. Durr

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 19, 1997
674 N.E.2d 1379 (Ohio 1997)
Case details for

State v. Durr

Case Details

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

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Feb 19, 1997

Citations

674 N.E.2d 1379 (Ohio 1997)
674 N.E.2d 1379

Citing Cases

State v. Jones

In addition, Jones has failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the alleged contradictory…

State v. Scott

We further find that the record fails to demonstrate any bias on the part of the trial court toward Scott.…