State v. Luna
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Luna, Appellant. [State v. Luna (1995), Ohio St.3d .] (No. 94-2337 -- Submitted April 24, 1995 -- Decided August 9, 1995.) 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 assert a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Huron County, No. H-93-24. Appellant, Michael K. Luna, was convicted of marijuana possession with a specification of a prior drug abuse felony and sentenced to from four to fifteen years in prison. The court assigned appellant a series of three appellate attorneys, each withdrawing after appellant moved to dismiss them. Throughout this time appellant represented himself by filing various pro se motions and his own assignments of error. State v. Luna (May 16, 1994), Huron App. No. H-93-24, unreported. After appellant's third motion to dismiss and request for a fourth counsel, the court of appeals construed appellant's conduct to be an effective waiver of his right to appointed counsel. Appellant filed a pro se application to reopen on September 9, 1994. He argued that he was ineffective as his own appellate counsel after being forced to represent himself by the incompetency of appointed counsel. Appellant stated he failed to include two assignments of error in his appeal and was therefore ineffective. Appellant also contended the courts had conspired to alter his transcript, thereby undermining effective assistance of any counsel. The court of appeals denied his application for reopening and motion to supplement same, stating appellant had "failed to assert a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel * * *." Appellant now appeals to this court. Michael K. Luna, pro se. Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its judgment entry. Judgment affirmed. Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
