Case Title: State v. Sibert

Citation: 1996-Ohio-15

Docket Number: 19951396

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Sibert, Appellant. 
1 
[Cite as State v. Sibert (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 
2 
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from 
3 
judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective 
4 
assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when 
5 
applicant not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to file a motion to 
6 
suppress certain incriminating statements made to the police. 
7 
 
(No. 95-1396--Submitted September 26, 1995--Decided January 17, 
8 
1996.) 
9 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Adams County, No. 93CA562. 
10 
 
Appellant, Jeffrey B. Sibert, was convicted of three counts of rape 
11 
with force specifications and sentenced to two consecutive terms of life 
12 
imprisonment and to a third such term concurrent with the other two.  The 
13 
convictions were affirmed on appeal.  State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio 
14 
App.3d 412, 648 N.E.2d 861. 
15 
 
Subsequently, appellant filed an application to reopen his appeal 
16 
pursuant to App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate 
17 
counsel because appellate counsel did not raise the issue that as trial counsel 
18 
he failed to file a motion to suppress certain incriminating statements 
19 
 
2
appellant had made to a police officer.  The court of appeals examined the 
1 
record and, inter alia, held that even if it had been error not to file a motion 
2 
to suppress, appellant had not been prejudiced because the three victims all 
3 
testified at trial. 
4 
 
Appellant appeals from the denial of his application to reopen. 
5 
 
Greg Carroll, Adams County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
6 
 
Jeffrey B. Sibert, pro se. 
7 
 
Per Curiam.  The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the 
8 
reason stated above.  On appeal, appellant alleges failure of trial counsel to 
9 
present the issue of his mental competence.  Apparently, the issue was not 
10 
raised in the court of appeals; therefore, we will not consider it for the first 
11 
time on appeal.  Zakany v. Zakany (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 192, 193, 9 OBR 
12 
505, 506-507, 459 N.E.2d 870, 872. 
13 
Judgment affirmed. 
14 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
15 
and COOK, JJ., concur. 
16 
 
17