Case Title: State v. Forney

Citation: 1995-Ohio-141

Docket Number: 19950250

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-07-26T00:00:00Z

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. Forney, Appellant.                               
[Cite as State v. Forney (1995),       OhioSt.3d      .]                         
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from                     
     judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective                       
     assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when                  
     issues raised by applicant had previously been litigated                    
     and were therefore res judicata.                                            
     (No. 95-250--Submitted April 18, 1995--Decided July 26,                     
1995.)                                                                           
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.                   
63310.                                                                           
     According to the court of appeals' journal entry,                           
appellant, La Don M. Forney,  was convicted of murder, and the                   
court of appeals affirmed his conviction.  State v. Forney                       
(Oct. 28, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 63310, unreported, 1993 WL                    
437647.  In December 1994, appellant filed an application to                     
reopen the appellate judgment pursuant to App. R. 26(B).  He                     
alleged that appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to                     
raise four issues.  He also argued that his ignorance of law                     
was good cause for the untimely filing of his application.                       
     The court of appeals held that ignorance of the law was                     
not good cause, that the issues appellant raised had previously                  
been litigated and were therefore res judicata, and that the                     
issues were also res judicata because they could have been                       
raised on appeal to this court from the judgment affirming the                   
conviction, but were not.                                                        
     Appellant appeals to this court.                                            
                                                                                 
     La Don M. Forney, pro se.                                                   
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  The judgment of the court of appeals is                        
affirmed for the reasons stated therein.                                         
                                 Judgment affirmed.                              
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney,                        
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.