State v. Webb

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




              THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. WEBB, APPELLANT.
                        [Cite as State v. Webb, 

.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
        conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
        Application denied when claim is res judicata because applicant had
        expressed discontent with his appellate counsel on direct appeal and errors
        alleged do not raise any genuine issues of ineffective assistance of appellate
        counsel.
     (No. 94-2471—Submitted February 21, 1995—Decided May 24, 1995.)
       APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 59544.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} According to the court of appeals' opinion, appellant, Frank J. Webb,
was convicted of, inter alia, aggravated robbery with a firearm specification,
kidnapping, attempted murder, possession of dangerous ordnance, having a weapon
under disability, and felonious assault.           The court of appeals reversed the
convictions for felonious assault and the firearm specification and affirmed the
other convictions. State v. Webb (Jan. 2, 1992), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 59544, 59626
and 59627, unreported, 

.                  Subsequently, appellant filed an
application to reopen his appeal in the court of appeals, alleging ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel for failure to argue that appellant was denied
constitutional rights when the trial court failed to instruct the jury on appellant's
right to a unanimous verdict and because the indictment failed to specify a material
element of the crime of attempted murder.
        {¶ 2} The court of appeals denied the application to reopen, holding that the
claims were res judicata because appellant had expressed discontent with his
appellate counsel on direct appeal and filed pro se assignments of error. Therefore,
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




appellant could then have filed the assignments of error he now seeks to litigate in
his application to reopen. Moreover, the court of appeals held that the errors alleged
do not raise any genuine issues of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
                               __________________
        Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and
George J. Sadd, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        Frank J. Webb, pro se.
                               __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated
in its opinion.
                                                                 Judgment affirmed.
        MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
                               __________________




                                          2