State v. Carter, 2018 Ohio 29

Defendant Alton O. Carter appealed a Cuyahoga County conviction for assault and kidnapping; this is an application to reopen his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B).
Carter contends his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue insufficiency of the evidence on the kidnapping charge (R.C. 2905.01(A)(4)), specifically that the State failed to prove "purpose to engage in sexual activity."
The original appellate opinion (State v. Carter, 2017) upheld the kidnapping conviction based on the victim’s testimony that Carter restrained her in a garage and made unwelcome sexual advances.
Carter notes he was acquitted of rape and attempted rape and argues that acquittals undermine the kidnapping purpose element.
The court considers whether res judicata bars reopening and applies the Strickland two-prong test for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
The court denies the application for reopening, holding res judicata bars relitigation of the sufficiency claim and that circumstances do not make applying res judicata unjust.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing insufficiency of evidence for kidnapping (purpose to engage in sexual activity)	The State argues the prior appellate decision already found the evidence (victim testimony of restraint and sexual advances) sufficient; res judicata bars relitigation	Carter argues the evidence was insufficient because he was acquitted of rape/attempted rape, so the required purpose element was not proven	Application to reopen denied: res judicata applies and the sufficiency issue was previously decided; reopening is unjustified

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984) (establishes deficient-performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio adoption of Strickland two-prong test)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata bars issues raised or that could have been raised on appeal)
State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 (1992) (res judicata applies to ineffective-assistance claims in reopening applications absent injustice)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (defines legal sufficiency standard)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sets Jenks standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Robinson, 124 Ohio St.3d 76 (2009) (reiterates sufficiency standard — viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (2001) (appellate review will not disturb verdict unless reasonable minds could not reach it)
State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (2002) (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact and not for sufficiency review)