State v. Glenn
2012 Ohio 1530
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Glenn timely filed an application for reopening under App.R. 26(B) to reopen his prior appellate judgment.
- The previous appeal State v. Glenn, 2011-Ohio-3684, affirmed Glenn’s conviction for two counts aggravated robbery with firearms specifications and two counts theft with firearm specifications.
- The application challenges appellate counsel's effectiveness by four proposed assignments of error.
- The court must apply the Strickland two-prong test to determine if reopening is warranted (deficient performance and prejudice).
- The court held that Glenn failed to show ineffective assistance or colorable claim; res judicata and merger analyses foreclose relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective-assistance claim on suppression and identifications | Glenn argues appellate counsel failed to raise suppression/identification issues. | State contends issues were previously resolved; not a colorable claim. | Denied; res judicata bars. |
| Ineffective-assistance claim on suppression of oral statement | Glenn asserts counsel failed to raise tainted oral statement issue. | State maintains issue already adjudicated; not colorable. | Denied; res judicata bars. |
| Merger of aggravated robbery and theft sentences | Glenn contends merger required for allied offenses. | The offenses involved separate acts with separate animus. | Denied; no merger. |
| Sufficiency of firearm specification proof | Insufficient evidence that firearm was operable. | Lay testimony established operability beyond reasonable doubt. | Denied; sufficient evidence existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534 (1996-Ohio-21) (two-prong Strickland standard for reopening)
- State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 24 (1998-Ohio-704) (colorable claim of ineffective assistance on appeal)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (appellate counsel need not raise every issue)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deficient performance and prejudice standard)
- State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 (1992) (preclusion principles in reopening)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (estoppel principles in appellate review)
- State v. Dehler, 73 Ohio St.3d 307 (1995) (collateral estoppel principles)