Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Jefferson
Jane M. Hanlin, Jefferson County Prosecutor for
K. Bishop, Pro se.
Cheryl L. Waite, Gene Donofrio, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Appellant James K. Bishop has filed an application to reopen
his appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B). In so doing, he asserts
nine assignments of error raising various issues related to
both his conviction and his sentence. For the reasons
provided, Appellant's application to reopen his appeal is
and Procedural History
On November 8, 2017, a grand jury indicted Appellant on: one
count of theft, a felony of the fourth degree in violation of
R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), (B)(2); one count of receiving stolen
property, a felony of the fifth degree in violation of R.C.
2913.51(A), (C); one count of burglary, a felony of the
second degree in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(1), (D); and
one count of safecracking, a felony of the fourth degree in
violation of R.C. 2911.31(A), (B).
The charges stemmed from an incident that occurred while
Appellant was employed with a construction company that was
completing a project at the victim's house. After
Appellant left the victim's house, the victim learned
that someone had pried open two of her locked jewelry boxes
and removed the contents. After an investigation and
Appellant's subsequent confession to his boss, he was
A jury convicted Appellant on all charges following a one-day
trial. However, the jury determined that the state did not
prove the value of the jewelry exceeded $17, 000, so the
theft conviction was reduced from a felony of the fourth
degree to a felony of the fifth degree.
On January 18, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to
an aggregate total of nine and one-half years of
We affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentence in
State v. Bishop, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 18 JE 0005,
2019-Ohio-2720 ("Bishop I "). This timely
application to reopen his appeal followed.
Pursuant to App.R. 26(B)(1), a criminal defendant "may
apply for reopening of the appeal from the judgment of
conviction and sentence, based on a claim of ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel." An applicant must
demonstrate that "there is a genuine issue as to whether
the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of
counsel on appeal." App.R. 26(B)(5). If the application
is granted, the appellate court must appoint counsel to
represent the applicant if the applicant is indigent and
unrepresented. App.R. 26(B)(6)(a).
In order to show ineffective assistance of appellate counsel,
the applicant must meet the two-prong test outlined in
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct.
2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Pursuant to Strickland,
the applicant must first demonstrate deficient performance of
counsel and then must demonstrate resulting prejudice.
Id. at 687. See also App.R. 26(B)(9).
We note that while Appellant's merit brief falls within
the applicable page limits, he has attached forty-seven
additional pages of handwritten notes, and various proposed
exhibits that also contain handwritten notes. As this
additional material is clearly designed to further
Appellant's arguments, it exceeds the page limit as
described within App.R. 26(B)(4), none of this material will
be considered by us. Additionally, Appellant has largely
failed to provide this Court with any substantive arguments
or legal citations. However, in the interest of fairness and
justice, we will attempt to address his
OF ERROR NO. 1
THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO SUPPORT
THE CONVICTION FOR THEFT, BURGLARY, RECEIVING STOLEN
PROPERTY, AND SAFE CRACKING [SIC].
OF ERROR NO. 5
TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED MOTION FOR RULE 29 FOR
ACQUITAL [SIC] OF BURGLARY, THEFT AND ...