State v. Cheren

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




             THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CHEREN, APPELLANT.
                      [Cite as State v. Cheren, 

.]
Appellate procedure—Successive application for reopening appeal from judgment
        and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate
        counsel—Application denied because App.R. 26(B) makes no provision for
        successive applications to reopen.
      (No. 95-0038—Submitted April 18, 1995—Decided August 16, 1995.)
        APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 15752.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Oles Cheren, was convicted of abduction, attempted rape
and gross sexual imposition. The Court of Appeals for Summit County affirmed
the judgment of the trial court. State v. Cheren (July 21, 1993), Summit App. No.
15752, unreported, 

.
        {¶ 2} Appellant filed an application to reopen the appellate judgment
pursuant to App. R. 26(B), arguing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The
application was denied by the court of appeals. The appellate court found that a
failure to object to every error in the record did not constitute ineffective assistance
of counsel. State v. Cheren (Sept. 14, 1993), Summit App. No. 15752, unreported.
        {¶ 3} On October 27, 1994, appellant filed another application to reopen,
again arguing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. To show good cause for
the thirteen-month delay, appellant stated that his appellate counsel had recently
admitted that she filed his appeal without a complete trial transcript. On December
2, 1994, the court of appeals ruled that the appellant had failed to show good cause
for untimely filing, and denied the second application to reopen.
                                  __________________
                                 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




          Maureen O'Connor, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and William D.
Wellemeyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
          Oles Cheren, pro se.
                                  __________________
          Per Curiam.
          {¶ 4} The decision of the court of appeals denying this successive
application is affirmed on the basis of State v. Peeples (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d,
N.E.2d, decided today.
                                                             Judgment affirmed.
          MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ.,
concur.
          COOK, J., not participating.
                                  __________________




                                           2