State v. Jones , 2014 Ohio 4467 ( 2014 )

[Cite as State v. Jones, 2014-Ohio-4467.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 99703
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
LISA JONES
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-12-568908 and CR-12-568910
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 474972
RELEASE DATE: October 7, 2014
FOR APPELLANT
Lisa Jones, pro se
Inmate No. 85971
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Hale Cottage
1479 Collins Avenue, K-1
Marysville, OH 43040
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Daniel T. Van
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
MELODY J. STEWART, J.:
{¶1} Lisa Jones has filed a timely application for reopening pursuant to App.R.
26(B). Jones is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment, rendered in State v. Jones,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99703, 2014-Ohio-1634, that affirmed her plea of guilty to the
offenses of aggravated arson, arson, and menacing by stalking, but reversed and
remanded for resentencing. For the following reasons, we decline to reopen Jones’s
appeal.
{¶2} In her application, Jones submits 15 proposed assignments of error in support
of her claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Jones, however, fails to
present any cogent argument within the proposed assignments of error demonstrating that
appellate counsel was deficient on appeal or that she was prejudiced by that deficiency.
In State v. Kelly, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 74912, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 2907 (June 21,
2000), this court held that the mere recitation of proposed assignments of error is not
sufficient to meet applicant’s burden to prove that appellate counsel was deficient for
failing to raise the errors now presented, as well as showing that had counsel argued those
errors on appeal, there was a reasonable probability that counsel would have been
successful. See also State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 24, 1998-Ohio-704, 701 N.E.2d 696;
State v. Hawkins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90704, 2009-Ohio-2246.
{¶3} It must be also noted that the doctrine of res judicata prevents this court from
reopening Jones’s original appeal. Errors of law and issues that were previously raised
through an appeal are barred from further review based on the operation of res judicata.
See generally State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967). In addition, the
Supreme Court of Ohio has established that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
will be barred 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).
{¶4} Herein, the issues of failure to transfer to the mental health docket, the guilty
plea was not voluntary, allied offenses of similar import, and the imposition of
consecutive sentences of incarceration have already been addressed on direct appeal and
found to be without merit. Thus, we find that the doctrine of res judicata prevents further
review of the issues of the mental health docket, involuntary plea of guilty, allied offenses
of similar import, and consecutive sentencing. We further find that the application of the
doctrine of res judicata is not unjust. State v. Tabasso, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98248,
2013-Ohio-3721.
{¶5} Jones has failed to establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Accordingly, we decline to reopen Jones’s original appeal.
{¶6} Application denied.
MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR