Case Title: State v. Otte

Citation: 2002-Ohio-343

Docket Number: 20010255

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-01-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State v. Otte, 94 Ohio St.3d 167, 2002-Ohio-343.] 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. OTTE, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Otte (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 167.] 
Appellate procedure — Application to reopen appeal from judgment of 
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel 
— Court of appeals’ denial of application affirmed, when — Application 
denied when applicant fails to meet his burden to demonstrate that there 
is a genuine issue as to whether he was deprived of the effective 
assistance of counsel on appeal as required by App.R. 26(B)(5). 
(No. 01-255 — Submitted July 17, 2001 — Decided January 30, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 64617. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellant, Gary W. Otte, challenges the denial of his App.R. 
26(B) application. 
 
A three-judge panel of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court 
convicted Otte of the aggravated murders of Robert Wasikowski and Sharon 
Kostura and sentenced him to death for each murder.  The Court of Appeals for 
Cuyahoga County affirmed the convictions and sentences, State v. Otte (Oct. 27, 
1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 64617, unreported, 1994 WL 590556, and we 
affirmed that judgment,  State v. Otte (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 555, 660 N.E.2d 711. 
 
On October 18, 2000, Otte filed in the court of appeals his application for 
reopening under App.R. 26(B), which provides for the reopening of an appeal 
based on a claim of ineffective appellate assistance if the applicant can show “a 
genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance 
of counsel on appeal.”  App.R. 26(B)(5). 
 
Otte claimed that his jury waiver was never filed in the trial court, that this 
failure deprived that court of jurisdiction to hold a bench trial, and that his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
original appellate counsel should have raised this issue on appeal.  The court of 
appeals denied the application, holding that Otte had “failed to meet his burden to 
demonstrate that ‘there is a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was 
deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal,’ ” quoting App.R. 
26(B)(5). 
 
Otte’s claim is based on State v. Pless (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 333, 658 
N.E.2d 766, and State ex rel. Jackson v. Dallman (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 261, 638 
N.E.2d 563.  In Pless and Dallman, we held that the mere signing of a jury waiver 
form—no matter how clear on the face of the record—is insufficient to effect a 
valid waiver of a criminal defendant’s jury trial right.  Because strict compliance 
with R.C. 2945.05 is necessary to a valid jury waiver, a signed waiver form must 
be filed in the trial court and made part of the record in accordance with R.C. 
2945.05. 
 
Although Otte admits that he actually signed a written waiver of jury trial, 
he claims that the signed waiver “was not filed with the trial court” as required by 
R.C. 2945.05.  Because of this omission, Otte contends, the three-judge panel 
never had jurisdiction to try his case; thus, his sentence and conviction are void.  
He further contends that his appellate counsel’s failure to raise this issue in the 
court of appeals constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, entitling him to 
reopen his appeal. 
 
Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 
L.Ed.2d 674, sets forth a two-part test for judging ineffective-assistance claims: 
“When a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness of counsel’s 
assistance, the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an 
objective standard of reasonableness.”  Id. at 687-688, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 80 
L.Ed.2d at 693.  Furthermore, “[t]he defendant must show that there is a 
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of 
the proceeding would have been different.  A reasonable probability is a 
January Term, 2002 
3 
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”  Id. at 694, 104 
S.Ct. at 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d at 698.  See, also, State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio 
St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373, paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. 
 
Applying Strickland, we conclude that Otte has raised no genuine issue of 
ineffective assistance because there was no arguable Pless issue for his original 
appellate counsel to raise.  Nowhere does Otte set forth any factual basis for his 
claim that the affidavit was not filed.  He does attach a photocopy of a certified 
copy of the signed jury waiver as an exhibit to his brief.  But nothing on the face 
of that exhibit indicates that the signed waiver was not filed in the trial court.  At 
most, it can be said that the waiver appears to lack a contemporaneous file stamp.  
Moreover, the exhibit shows a certification, dated September 6, 1996, that states: 
 
“I, Gerald E. Fuerst, clerk of the court of common pleas within and for 
said [Cuyahoga] county, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is truly taken 
and copied from the original CR279973 now on file in my office.”1  (Emphasis 
added.) 
 
State ex rel. Larkins v. Baker (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 658, 653 N.E.2d 701, 
presented a similar issue.  There, the petitioner’s signed jury waiver (like Otte’s) 
was physically located in the case file but had not been file-stamped.  We held 
that, despite Dallman’s requirement of strict compliance with R.C. 2945.05, the 
trial court’s failure to file-stamp the waiver was not a jurisdictional defect.  Id. at 
661, 653 N.E.2d at 703.  When we later decided Pless, we distinguished Larkins 
in part because “the record before us contains no evidence that appellant’s signed 
jury waiver form was ever included in the trial court’s case file.”  Pless, 74 Ohio 
St.3d at 339, 658 N.E.2d at 770. 
 
Thus, had Otte’s appellate counsel raised the Pless issue, there is no 
reasonable probability that the result would have been different; Otte would have 
lost anyway.  This being the case, Otte has failed to carry his burden of showing 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
the existence of “a genuine issue as to whether [he] was deprived of the effective 
assistance of counsel on appeal.”  App.R. 26(B)(5).  We therefore affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sherry F. 
McCreary, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Wendi Dotson and Jennifer P. 
Hite, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant. 
__________________ 
                                                                                                                                                              
 
1. 
CR-279973 is the case number assigned to Otte’s case in the common pleas court.