Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—Application denied when res judicata bars further litigation of issues that were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal.
.]
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. DEHLER, APPELLANT.
[Cite as State v. Dehler,
1995-Ohio-320
.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
Application denied when res judicata bars further litigation of issues that
were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal.
(No. 95-474—Submitted May 9, 1995—Decided August 23, 1995.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 65716.
__________________
{¶ 1} Appellant, Lambert Dehler, was convicted of five counts of felonious
sexual penetration and thirteen counts of gross sexual imposition and sentenced to,
inter alia, life imprisonment. Appellant’s convictions and sentence were affirmed
by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. State v. Dehler (July 14, 1994),
Cuyahoga App. No. 65716, unreported. This court overruled Dehler’s motion for
leave to appeal and claimed appeal of right.
{¶ 2} Dehler filed in the court of appeals a timely application to reopen his
appeal under App. R. 26(B), alleging ineffective asssistance of his appellate
counsel. The court of appeals denied the application, finding that res judicata bars
the further litigation of issues that were raised or could have been raised on direct
appeal. The court of appeals conducted a substantive review of Dehler’s four
proposed assignments of error and found that the claim of ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel was not demonstrated. The appellate court found that appellate
counsel need not raise frivolous issues which are meritless. Appellant appeals the
denial to this court.
__________________
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and John
W. Monroe, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Lambert Dehler, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 3} We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reasons stated
in its opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER AND
COOK, JJ., CONCUR.
__________________
2
