State v. Cowan
2013 Ohio 1172
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Cowan applied to reopen this court’s judgment under App.R. 26(B) and Murnahan after this court’s prior decision in State v. Cowan (2012-Ohio-5723).
- This court affirmed Cowan’s convictions but remanded for resentencing under R.C. 2929.14.
- Cowan sought reopening on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel grounds.
- Cowan proposed a pro se brief beyond the court’s page limit; the court limited him to ten pages.
- The court declined to address the pro se brief and held res judicata bars reopening when the appellant filed a pro se brief; Faretta v. California cited in support.
- Result: application for reopening denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars reopening of the appeal. | State asserts res judicata bars the application. | Cowan argues ineffective assistance and error on trial issues via self-representation. | Denied; res judicata bars the reopening. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (establishes res judicata applicability to post-judgment challenges)
- State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 (1992) (reaffirmed res judicata impact on 26(B) claims)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (pro se defense rights; cannot later complain about quality of own defense)
- State v. Tyler, 71 Ohio St.3d 398 (1994) (recognizes res judicata and limits on reopening in presence of pro se briefing)
- State v. Boone, 114 Ohio App.3d 275 (1996) (reopening disallowed when pro se brief filed)