2011 Ohio 2657
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Wright applied under App.R. 26(B) and Murnahan to reopen judgments in Case 1 and Case 2 for ineffective-assistance claims.
- Case 1 affirmed Wright’s four child endangerment convictions but remanded for resentencing due to allied-offenses grouping.
- Case 2 affirmed the resentencing and the merger of counts 2–4 into Count 1 with the original eight-year sentence reimposed.
- Wright argued his appellate lawyers were ineffective for various trial and appellate issues, including indictments, evidence, and harsh sentence.
- The application was filed about 15 months after journalization of Case 1, making it untimely on its face for reopening that case.
- Res judicata was raised as a bar because Wright and his briefs rehash previously litigated issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the application is timely | Wright contends timely due to good cause. | State asserts untimely filing. | Untimely as to Case 1; no good cause shown. |
| Whether res judicata bars reopening | Wright asserts new or preserved claims. | Res judicata precludes repeated attacks after final judgment. | Res judicata bars the application. |
| Whether Wright's pro se submissions affect the analysis | Pro se briefs should not bar consideration. | Pro se filings do not overcome res judicata or untimeliness. | Courts have repeatedly held pro se briefs do not bypass res judicata/untimeliness; application denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 (1992) (establishes procedures for reopening under App.R. 26(B))
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (nears establishes res judicata applicability to 26(B) rulings)
- State v. Tyler, 71 Ohio St.3d 398 (1994) (reopening disallowed for pro se litigants)
- State v. Boone, 114 Ohio App.3d 275 (1996) (reopening disallowed; related to 26(B) eligibility)
- State v. Williams, Cuyahoga App. No. 69936 (1996) (reopening disallowed (pro se filings) case-specific)
- State v. Larkins, Cuyahoga App. Nos. 52779 and 52780 (1987/1996) (reopening disallowed; multiple docket numbers cited)
- State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 (1995) (Murnahan/App.R. 26(B) purposes; limits on new theories)