State v. Dehler

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




             THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. DEHLER, APPELLANT.
                       [Cite as State v. Dehler, 

.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
        conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
        Application denied when no colorable claim for reopening appeal stated—
        App.R. 26(B).
 (No. 94-1930—Submitted November 15, 1994—Decided December 23, 1994.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, Nos. 65006 and 66020.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Lambert Dehler, was convicted of two counts of rape and
two counts of gross sexual imposition. He appealed, and the court of appeals
affirmed the rape convictions and reversed the gross sexual imposition convictions.
State v. Dehler (May 26, 1994), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 65006 and 66020, unreported.
Appellant then filed an application to reopen his appeal under App. R. 26 (B),
alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. According to the court of
appeals, he alleged that his appellate counsel was ineffective by (1) failing to
include a transcript of a pretrial hearing that would have shown judicial bias and
that appellant did not voluntarily waive his right to a speedy trial, (2) failing to file
a complete record, (3) failing to raise certain assignments of error, and (4) the
cumulative effect of all errors. The court of appeals examined each issue and held
that none stated a colorable claim for reopening the appeal. State v. Dehler (Aug.
24,1994), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 65006 and 66020, unreported. Appellant appeals
from that decision.
                                  __________________
        Lambert Dehler, pro se.
                                  __________________
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 2} The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated
in its opinion.
                                                                 Judgment affirmed.
        MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY
and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.
                               __________________




                                          2