Case Title: State v. Were

Citation: 2008-Ohio-5277

Docket Number: 20071368

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-10-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State v. Were, 120 Ohio St.3d 85, 2008-Ohio-5277.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. WERE, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Were, 120 Ohio St.3d 85, 2008-Ohio-5277.] 
Appeal from denial of application to reopen direct appeal pursuant to App.R. 
26(B) – Ineffective assistance of counsel not shown – Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2007-1368 – Submitted October 8, 2008 – Decided October 16, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-030485. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, James Were, challenges the denial of his application to 
reopen his direct appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B). 
{¶ 2} Appellant was convicted of, and sentenced to death for, the 
aggravated murder of Corrections Officer Robert Vallandingham during the 
inmate riot at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF”) in April 1993.  
The court of appeals affirmed his convictions and death sentence.  State v. Were, 
Hamilton App. No. C-030485, 2005-Ohio-376 and 2006-Ohio-3511.  We also 
affirmed appellant’s convictions and sentence.  State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448, 
2008-Ohio-2762, 890 N.E.2d 263.  On his direct appeal to the court of appeals 
and subsequently to this court, he was represented by H. Fred Hoefle and Chris 
McEvilley. 
{¶ 3} Following the court of appeals' decision, appellant — now 
represented by the Ohio Public Defender — filed an application with the court of 
appeals to reopen his initial appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v. 
Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204.  App.R. 26(B)(5) requires 
that the applicant show a “genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived 
of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal.”  Appellant claimed that he had 
been denied effective assistance by reason of his appellate counsel’s failure to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
raise certain issues in the court of appeals.  On June 20, 2007, the court of appeals 
denied appellant’s application for reopening.  State v. Were (June 20, 2007), 
Hamilton App. No. C-030485.  He now appeals from that denial. 
{¶ 4} Appellant raises three issues in this appeal.  In his first proposition 
of law, he argues that the court of appeals erred by failing to conduct an 
evidentiary hearing before denying his application for reopening.  App.R. 
26(B)(8) provides that “[i]f the court of appeals determines that an evidentiary 
hearing is necessary, the evidentiary hearing may be conducted by the court or 
referred to a magistrate.”  (Emphasis added.)  See Morgan v. Eads, 104 Ohio 
St.3d 142, 2004-Ohio-6110, 818 N.E.2d 1157, ¶ 11.  Thus, appellant was not 
entitled to an evidentiary hearing before the court of appeals ruled on his 
application.  Moreover, the record does not show that he requested an evidentiary 
hearing.  Even assuming such a hearing was requested, appellant fails to explain 
how he was prejudiced by the court of appeals’ failure to conduct such a hearing.  
The court of appeals’ opinion shows that the court carefully considered each of 
the issues that appellant wanted to raise on a reopened appeal before denying his 
application.  We reject proposition I. 
{¶ 5} In proposition of law II, appellant argues that the court of appeals 
erred by invoking res judicata as a basis for denying his application for reopening. 
{¶ 6} The court of appeals rejected eight issues included in appellant’s 
application for reopening on the grounds of res judicata: “(1) the trial court’s 
conduct in conditioning the granting of Were’s motion for a jury view upon his 
waiver of his right to attend the view, (2) the court’s restriction during voir dire of 
inquiries into prospective jurors’ views of capital punishment, (3) the denial of 
Were’s challenges to the prosecution’s exercise of peremptory challenges to 
excuse two African-American jurors, (4) the trial judge’s contact with the jury on 
the bus to the jury view, (5) the admission of testimony and audiotape containing 
statements of individuals who did not testify at trial, (6) the preclusion of 
January Term, 2008 
3 
testimony that another inmate had committed the murder, (7) the trial judge’s bias 
stemming from his exposure to prejudicial information acquired when presiding 
over the trial of another prison inmate, and (8) the court’s failure to instruct the 
jury during the penalty phase of the trial that it need not unanimously reject the 
death sentence before recommending a life sentence.”  State v. Were (June 20, 
2007), Hamilton App. No. C-030485, at 2.  The court of appeals held that those 
issues were barred by res judicata because appellate counsel had raised those 
issues in his subsequent appeal to this court.  Id. at 2-3. 
{¶ 7} Appellant argues that the court of appeals erred in applying res 
judicata because those issues were never raised before it and decided by it.  
However, this claim has no merit.  “Res judicata may be applied to bar further 
litigation of issues that were raised previously or could have been raised 
previously in an appeal.”  State v. Houston (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 346, 347, 652 
N.E.2d 1018.  Before the court of appeals denied Were’s application, appellant 
had filed his brief on appeal in this court.  His brief raised the eight issues that the 
court of appeals found were res judicata.  Accordingly, each of those issues had 
been “raised previously” in an appeal, and we have since decided those issues.  
State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448, 2008-Ohio-2762, 890 N.E.2d 263.  Therefore, 
they are now res judicata.  Thus, we reject proposition II. 
{¶ 8} In proposition of law III, appellant reaches the merits of issues that 
he claims his appellate lawyers should have raised.  As discussed, eight of those 
issues are rejected on the basis of res judicata.  In addition, appellant argues that 
his appellate counsel were ineffective by failing to challenge the trial court’s 
ruling requiring him to wear a stun belt during the trial.  He also argues that his 
appellate counsel were ineffective by failing to challenge the trial court’s 
restrictions of questioning during voir dire about whether the prospective jurors 
could follow the law and consider the evidence during both phases of the trial.  
However, we considered and rejected both of those claims in Were’s appeal 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
before this court.  State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448, 2008-Ohio-2762, 890 
N.E.2d 263, ¶ 76-85 and ¶ 101-103. Appellant also raises multiple claims of 
ineffective assistance of trial counsel that he asserts his appellate counsel should 
have raised.  However, we considered and rejected most of those ineffectiveness 
claims in Were’s appeal before this court.  Id. at ¶ 215-252. 
{¶ 9} Appellant’s remaining assignments of error address issues that 
appellate counsel did not raise on appeal: (1) the denial of appellant’s motion for 
transfer to the Hamilton County jail during pretrial proceedings, which allegedly 
precluded him from having meaningful contact with his counsel, (2) the 
admissibility of testimony obtained through promises of lesser sentences and 
letters to parole boards, (3) trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in failing to notify him 
of the identity of doctors who were going to evaluate his competency, and (4) trial 
counsel’s ineffectiveness in conducting voir dire. 
{¶ 10} The two-pronged analysis found in Strickland v. Washington 
(1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, is the appropriate 
standard to determine whether a defendant has received ineffective assistance of 
appellate counsel.  See State v. Sheppard (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 329, 330, 744 
N.E.2d 770; State v. Spivey (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 24, 25, 701 N.E.2d 696. 
{¶ 11} In order to show ineffective assistance, appellant “must prove that 
his counsel were deficient for failing to raise the issues he now presents and that 
there was a reasonable probability of success had he presented those claims on 
appeal.”  Sheppard, 91 Ohio St.3d at 330, 744 N.E.2d 770, citing State v. Bradley 
(1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373, paragraph three of the syllabus.  
Moreover, to justify reopening his appeal, appellant “bears the burden of 
establishing that there was a ‘genuine issue’ as to whether he has a ‘colorable 
claim’ of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal.”  Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d at 
25, 701 N.E.2d 696. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
{¶ 12} We have reviewed the assertions of deficient performance by 
appellate counsel and find that appellant has failed to raise a “genuine issue as to 
whether [he] was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal” before 
the court of appeals, as required by App.R. 26(B)(5). 
{¶ 13} Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Mark E. Piepmeier, Special Prosecuting Attorney, and William E. Breyer, 
Assistant Special Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Randall L. Porter, Assistant 
Public Defender, for appellant. 
______________________