Case Title: State v. Cheren

Citation: 1995-Ohio-28

Docket Number: 19950427

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-08-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Cheren, Appellant.                               
[Cite as State v. Cheren (1995),      Ohio St.3d     .]                          
Appellate procedure -- Successive applications for reopening                     
     appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of                       
     ineffective assistance of appellate counsel -- Application                  
     denied -- App.R. 26(B) makes no provision for filing                        
     successive applications to reopen.                                          
     (No. 95-427 Submitted June 6, 1995 -- Decided August 16,                    
1995.)                                                                           
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No.                     
15752.                                                                           
     Appellant, Oles Cheren, was convicted of abduction,                         
attempted rape and gross sexual imposition, and sentenced to                     
incarceration.  The court of appeals affirmed the conviction                     
and sentence of the trial court.  State v. Cheren (July 21,                      
1993), Summit App. No. 15752, unreported, 1993 WL 278168.                        
According to appellant, the court of appeals denied his first                    
application to reopen pursuant to App. R. 26(B) on September                     
14, 1993.  A second application to reopen was denied on                          
December 2, 1994.  Appellant now appeals from the denial of his                  
third application to reopen.                                                     
                                                                                 
     Oles Cheren, pro se.                                                        
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  We held in State v. Peeples (1995), 73 Ohio                    
St.3d        ,     N.E.2d    , decided today, that a prisoner                    
has no right to file successive applications for reopening.                      
Once ineffective assistance of counsel has been raised and                       
adjudicated, res judicata bars its relitigation.  See State v.                   
Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 39 O.O.2d 189, 226 N.E.2d                       
104.  In this case, appellant has raised two prior claims of                     
ineffective assistance of counsel in his prior applications to                   
reopen.  This court has already determined appellant's counsel                   
was effective.  State v. Cheren (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d     ,                      
N.E.2d    , decided today.  The judgment of the court of                         
appeals is therefore affirmed.                                                   
                                 Judgment affirmed.                              
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and                     
Pfeifer, JJ., concur.                                                            
     Cook, J., not participating.