State v. Munoz
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 242
Syllabus
App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, res judicata, prosecutorial misconduct. The appellant's App.R. 26(B) application for reopening is denied because appellate counsel was not ineffective on appeal. The issues raised in support of the application for reopening, with the exception of the claim of prosecutorial misconduct, are barred from further review by the doctrine of res judicata. In addition, the appellant has failed to demonstrate any prosecutorial misconduct. The appellant has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by appellate counsel on appeal. Application for reopening is denied.
Judges: S. Gallagher
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
- State v. BradleyOhio Supreme Court· 1989-05-10· cited 7,124×
- State v. PerryOhio Supreme Court· 1967-05-03· cited 2,571×
- State v. MurnahanOhio Supreme Court· 1992-02-19· cited 753×
- State v. KeenanOhio Supreme Court· 1993-06-16· cited 535×
- Bradley v. OhioSupreme Court· 1990-06-25· cited 133×
- State v. MayOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-11-28· cited 18×
- State v. WarnerOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-01-24· cited 14×
- State v. MunozOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-06-08· cited 10×
- State v. FreemanOhio Court of Appeals· 2011-10-03· cited 6×
- State v. LesterOhio Court of Appeals· 2018-12-19· cited 6×
- State v. LittlejohnOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-03-09· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.