State v. Cheren, 73 Ohio St. 3d 137

State v. Cheren

73 Ohio St. 3d 137

Ohio

1995

Check Treatment

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CHEREN, APPELLANT.

No. 95-427

Supreme Court of Ohio

Submitted June 6, 1995—Decided August 16, 1995.

73 Ohio St.3d 137, 1995-Ohio-28

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 15752.

Appellate procedure—Successive applications for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—Application denied—App.R. 26(B) makes no provision for filing successive applications to reopen.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Oles Cheren, was convicted of abduction, attempted rape and gross sexual imposition, and sentenced to incarceration. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial court. State v. Cheren (July 21, 1993), Summit App. No. 15752, unreported, 1993 WL 278168. According to appellant, the court of appeals denied his first application to reopen pursuant to App. R. 26(B) on September 14, 1993. A second application to reopen was denied on December 2, 1994. Appellant now appeals from the denial of his third application to reopen.

Oles Cheren, pro se.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 2} We held in State v. Peeples (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 149, 652 N.E.2d 717, decided today, that a prisoner has no right to file successive applications for reopening. Once ineffective assistance of counsel has been raised and adjudicated, res judicata bars its relitigation. See State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 39 O.O.2d 189, 226 N.E.2d 104. In this case, appellant has raised two prior claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in his prior applications to reopen. This court has already determined appellant‘s counsel was effective. State v. Cheren (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 138, 652 N.E.2d 708, decided today. The judgment of the court of appeals is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.

COOK, J., not participating.