State v. Johnson , 2012 Ohio 1827 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Johnson, 
    2012-Ohio-1827
    .]
    Court of Appeals of Ohio
    EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
    No. 96064
    STATE OF OHIO
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
    vs.
    CHARLES JOHNSON
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
    JUDGMENT:
    APPLICATION DENIED
    Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
    Case No. CR-539760
    Application for Reopening
    Motion No. 450122
    RELEASE DATE: April 25, 2012
    FOR APPELLANT
    Charles Johnson, pro se
    Inmate No. 593-732
    Belmont Correctional Institution
    P.O. Box 540
    St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    William D. Mason
    Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
    By: Mark J. Mahoney
    Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
    The Justice Center
    1200 Ontario Street
    Cleveland, OH 44113
    FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.:
    {¶1} Charles Johnson has filed a timely application for reopening pursuant to
    App.R. 26(B). Johnson is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment, as rendered in
    State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. No. 96064, 
    2011-Ohio-4954
    , which affirmed his plea of guilty
    and sentence of incarceration with regard to one count of attempted intimidation of a
    crime witness or witnesses and one count of menacing by stalking.
    {¶2} In his application for reopening, Johnson argues three proposed assignments
    of error in support of his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Johnson
    raises three issues through his proposed assignments of error: (1) improperly convicted of
    attempted intimidation; (2) criminal case was improperly charged in Cuyahoga County,
    specifically improper venue, because the telephone calls and mail directed to the victim
    were sent from Lorain County; and (3) trial court abused its discretion, during sentencing,
    by relying on facts outside of the indictment.
    {¶3} Each of the aforesaid issues, as currently presented by Johnson through his
    application for reopening, have been previously raised and addressed through the
    underlying appeal. The following issues were raised and addressed upon direct appeal:
    (1) assignment of error one — double jeopardy; (2) assignment of error two — allied
    offenses of similar import/merger for sentencing; (3) assignment of error three —
    improperly convicted of the offense of intimidation; (4) assignment of error four —
    improper venue for indictment; (5) assignment of error five — improper sentence based
    upon consecutive, maximum sentences; (6) assignment of error six — trial court abused
    its discretion by relying upon facts outside of the indictment for sentencing purposes; and
    ( 7) assignment of error seven — ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The issues
    currently argued by Johnson were previously argued and found to be without merit
    through assignments of error three, four, and six.
    {¶4} The doctrine of res judicata prevents this court form reopening Johnson’s
    appeal. Errors of law that were previously raised on appeal may be barred from further
    review vis-a-vis the doctrine of res judicata. State v. Perry, 
    10 Ohio St.2d 175
    , 
    226 N.E.2d 104
     (1967). The Supreme Court of Ohio has also established that a claim of
    ineffective assistance of appellate counsel may be barred from further review, by the
    doctrine of res judicata, unless circumstances render the application of the doctrine
    unjust. State v. Murnahan, 
    63 Ohio St.3d 60
    , 
    584 N.E.2d 1204
     (1992); State v. Williams,
    8th Dist. No. 57988, 
    1991 WL 21261
     (March 4, 1991), reopening disallowed (Aug. 15,
    1994), Motion No. 252614.         Thus, the doctrine of res judicata bars any further
    consideration of the issues as raised by Johnson in support of his claim of ineffective
    assistance of appellate counsel. State v. Dehler, 
    73 Ohio St.3d 307
    , 
    1995-Ohio-320
    , 
    652 N.E.2d 987
    ; State v. Terrell, 
    72 Ohio St.3d 247
    , 
    1995-Ohio-54
    , 
    648 N.E.2d 1352
    . We
    further find that the facts and circumstances, pertinent to this claim of ineffective
    assistance of appellate counsel, do not render the application of the doctrine of res
    judicata unjust. State v. Murnahan, supra.
    {¶5} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
    FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE
    MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and
    COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96064

Citation Numbers: 2012 Ohio 1827

Judges: Celebrezze

Filed Date: 4/25/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014