Case Title: State v. Liebtag

Citation: 1994-Ohio-72

Docket Number: 19941473

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1994-12-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
                                                                                 
              **** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING ****                               
                                                                                 
     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. Liebtag, Appellant.                              
[Cite as State v. Liebtag (1994),      Ohio St.3d      .]                        
Appellate procedure -- App.R. 26 -- Application for reopening                    
     appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of                       
     ineffective assistance of appellate counsel -- Application                  
     denied when issue raised by appellant has previously been                   
     considered by appellate court.                                              
     (No. 94-1473 Submitted October 24, 1994 -- Decided                          
December 14, 1994.)                                                              
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No.                      
CA-9365.                                                                         
     Appellant, Craig L. Liebtag, alleges he was convicted of                    
involuntary manslaughter in 1988, after pleading guilty.  In                     
1993, he was allowed to file a delayed appeal, but the court of                  
appeals affirmed the conviction by judgment entry of February                    
7, 1994.  Appellant subsequently applied to the court of                         
appeals to reopen the appeal from the judgment of conviction,                    
alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel involving                   
his plea of guilty to involuntary manslaughter.  The court of                    
appeals denied the application, stating in its entry on                          
reconsideration that the issue raised by appellant had                           
previously been considered in its February 7, 1994 opinion.                      
Appellant appeals the denial to this court.                                      
                                                                                 
     Craig L. Liebtag, pro se.                                                   
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  The decision of the court of appeals is                        
affirmed for the reasons stated therein.                                         
                                    Judgment affirmed.                           
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney                   
and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.                                                        
     Wright, J., dissents.