State v. Lester

Citations

• 2018 Ohio 5154

Syllabus

App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, timely filed, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, App.R. 26(B)(2)(d) sworn statement, Civ.R. 11 signature requirement, application for reopening is a civil, postconviction proceeding, res judicata. The appellant's App.R. 26(B) application for reopening is procedurally defective. The application fails to comply with App.R. 26(B)(2)(d), which requires a sworn statement of the basis of the claim that appellate counsel's representation was deficient with respect to the proposed assignments of error raised pursuant to App.R. 26(B)(2)(c) and the manner in which the claimed deficiency prejudicially affected the outcome of the appeal. In addition, because an application for reopening is a civil, postconviction proceeding, the appellant was required to sign the application per Civ.R. 11. Finally, all issues raised by the appellant in his application for reopening were previously raised and addressed on appeal and found to be without merit. The doctrine of res judicata prevents relitigation of the issues presented in the application for reopening.