Appellate procedure—App.R. 26—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—Application denied when issue raised by appellant has previously been considered by appellate court.
.]
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. LIEBTAG, APPELLANT.
[Cite as State v. Liebtag,
1994-Ohio-72
.]
Appellate procedure—App.R. 26—Application for reopening appeal from judgment
and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel—Application denied when issue raised by appellant has previously
been considered by appellate court.
(No. 94-1473 Submitted—October 24, 1994—Decided December 14, 1994.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. CA-9365.
__________________
{¶ 1} Appellant, Craig L. Liebtag, alleges he was convicted of involuntary
manslaughter in 1988, after pleading guilty. In 1993, he was allowed to file a
delayed appeal, but the court of appeals affirmed the conviction by judgment entry
of February 7, 1994. Appellant subsequently applied to the court of appeals to
reopen the appeal from the judgment of conviction, alleging ineffective assistance
of appellate counsel involving his plea of guilty to involuntary manslaughter. The
court of appeals denied the application, stating in its entry on reconsideration that
the issue raised by appellant had previously been considered in its February 7, 1994
opinion. Appellant appeals the denial to this court.
__________________
Craig L. Liebtag, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 2} The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated
therein.
Judgment affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and
PFEIFER, JJ., concur.
WRIGHT, J., dissents.
__________________
2
