Title: State v. Houston

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

# 9623 
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Houston, Appellant. 
1 
[Cite as State v. Houston (1995), _______ Ohio St.3d ________.] 
2 
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from judgment and 
3 
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate 
4 
counsel -- Application denied when applicant fails to show cause for 
5 
failing to file his application within ninety days after journalization of 
6 
the appellate judgment as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b). 
7 
 
(No. 95-600 -- Submitted June 6, 1995, -- Decided August 23, 1995.) 
8 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 64574. 
9 
 
Appellant, Darryl Houston, was convicted of aggravated murder with 
10 
a firearm specification, aggravated robbery with a firearm specification and 
11 
having a weapon while under disability and sentenced accordingly.  The 
12 
court of appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence.  State v. Houston 
13 
(Jan. 13, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 64574, unreported.  This court then 
14 
denied leave to appeal. 
15 
 
On January 10, 1995, Houston filed with the court of appeals an 
16 
application to reopen his appeal under App. R. 26(B), alleging ineffective 
17 
assistance of his appellate counsel.  The court of appeals denied the 
18 
 
2
application finding that appellant had failed to establish good cause for not 
1 
filing the application to reopen within ninety days from the journalization of 
2 
the appellate judgment as required by App. R. 26(B)2)(b).  Additionally, the 
3 
court of appeals held that Houston failed to demonstrate that circumstances 
4 
render the application of res judicata to his prayer for reopening unjust.  
5 
Appellant appeals the denial to this court. 
6 
____________________ 
7 
 
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
8 
Diane Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
9 
 
Darrell Houston, pro se. 
10 
____________________ 
11 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the 
12 
following reasons. 
13 
 
App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that an application for reopening 
14 
establish “a showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is 
15 
filed more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment.”  
16 
Appellant’s application to reopen was not filed until nearly one year after 
17 
journalization of the appellate judgment.  Appellant claims that he was 
18 
 
3
denied access to his trial transcript, which allegedly prevented him from 
1 
discovering his appellate counsel’s deficiencies in a timely manner.  
2 
However, the basis of appellant’s claim -- counsel’s failure to call certain 
3 
defense witnesses to testify -- does not require a transcript to be identified.  
4 
See State v. Bell (1995), ____ Ohio St.3d ____, ___N.E.2d ____. 
5 
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals as to the failure 
6 
to show good cause. 
7 
 
Res judicata may be applied to bar further litigation of issues that 
8 
were raised previously or could have been raised previously in an appeal.  
9 
See State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 39 O.O.2d 189, 226 N.E.2d 
10 
104.  In State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 66, 584 N.E.2d 1204, 
11 
1209, we held that in some cases “circumstances render the application of 
12 
res judicata unjust.”  In the case at bar, however, appellant has had prior 
13 
opportunities to challenge the effectiveness of his appellate counsel. 
14 
Furthermore, appellant provides no explanation as to why the application of 
15 
res judicata would be unjust. 
16 
 
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
17 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
18 
 
4
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
1 
AND COOK, JJ., CONCUR. 
2 
 
3