State v. Harrison
2011 Ohio 5823
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Harrison filed a timely App.R. 26(B) reopening application challenging a prior appellate judgment concerning the denial of his request for new trial counsel.
- The underlying appellate judgment Harrison seeks to reopen was State v. Harrison, 2011-Ohio-3258, which affirmed the trial court’s denial of new counsel for the pro se defendant.
- The court held that App.R. 26(B) cannot be used to reopen an appeal that did not address the judgment of conviction and sentence; the issue here concerned remedy for trial-court counsel, not appellate counsel.
- The court reviews Harrison’s claim under the Strickland two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel via Reed v. Ohio St.3d, applying a presumption of reasonable professional assistance.
- The court finds Harrison’s proposed issue is barred by res judicata because the matter was already determined on multiple prior appeals and related reopening rulings.
- Consequently, the application for reopening is denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether App.R. 26(B) may reopen the prior appeal | Harrison seeks reopening under App.R. 26(B) for ineffective appellate assistance. | State objects; the rule cannot reopen an appeal not addressing conviction/sentence. | Not permissible; 26(B) cannot reopen this appellate judgment. |
| Applicable standard for reopening an appeal | Reopening requires showing deficient appellate representation and a reasonable probability of success on appeal. | Reopening standards apply via Strickland/Reed framework. | Strickland/ Reed standard governs reopening analysis. |
| Res judicata effect on claims of ineffective appellate counsel | Could relitigate whether appellate counsel was ineffective. | Res judicata prevents further review of such claims. | Res judicata bars the claim; no further review. |
| Remand hearing on appointment of new counsel | Trial court failed to conduct a full inquiry and improperly denied new counsel. | Remand history already determined the reasons were insufficient; no error in denial. | Precluded; barred by res judicata; no change in outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534 (1996-Ohio-21) (two-prong Strickland test for reopening under App.R. 26(B))
- State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 24 (1998-Ohio-704) (colorable claim required; burden to show ineffective assistance on appeal)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (counsel not required to raise every possible issue)
- State v. Loomer, 76 Ohio St.3d 398 (1996-Ohio-59) (reopening limitations; not allowed to reopen when issue is not properly framed)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata foundations for post-conviction review)
- State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 (1992) (res judicata can bar ineffective-assistance claims in App.R. 26(B) proceedings)
- State v. Segines, 2010-Ohio-5112 (2010-Ohio-5112) (reopening disallowed; preclusion of further review)
- State v. Reed, State v. Reed (1996-Ohio-21) (see above for citation formatting reminder)