2012 Ohio 1827
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Charles Johnson filed a timely App.R. 26(B) reopening application in the Eighth District of Ohio, seeking to reopen the judgment in State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. No. 96064, 2011-Ohio-4954.
- The underlying judgment affirmed Johnson’s guilty plea to one count of attempted intimidation of a crime witness and one count of menacing by stalking.
- The trial record and direct-appeal issues were previously reviewed by the court; Johnson asserted three proposed assignments of error in support of ineffective appellate assistance.
- The court held prior assignments of error 3, 4, and 6 on direct appeal; Johnson’s current reopenings mirror those issues.
- The court applied res judicata to bar reopening, citing controlling Ohio authority on a final judgment’s review and ineffective-assistance claims.
- The application for reopening was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars reopening of the appeal. | Johnson | State | Denied; res judicata applied. |
| Whether Johnson’s proposed assignments of error were previously addressed on direct appeal. | Johnson | State | Denied; issues already resolved on appeal. |
| Whether ineffective-assistance claims survive reopening. | Johnson | State | Denied; res judicata bars. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (bar for reopening; res judicata principle in reopening)
- State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 (Ohio 1992) (ineffective-assistance claims barred unless unjust)
- State v. Dehler, 73 Ohio St.3d 307 (Ohio 1995) (res judicata governs reopening of appellate review)
- State v. Terrell, 72 Ohio St.3d 247 (Ohio 1995) (additional res judicata considerations in reopening)