Title: State v. Dehler

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

# 10063 
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Dehler, Appellant. 
1 
[Cite as State v. Dehler (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 res judicata bars further litigation 
5 
of issues that were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal. 
6 
 
(No. 95-474 -- Submitted May 9, 1995 -- Decided August 23, 1995.) 
7 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 65716. 
8 
 
Appellant, Lambert Dehler, was convicted of five counts of felonious 
9 
sexual penetration and thirteen counts of gross sexual imposition and 
10 
sentenced to, inter alia, life imprisonment.  Appellant’s convictions and 
11 
sentence were affirmed by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.  
12 
State v. Dehler (July 14, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 65716, unreported.  
13 
This court overruled Dehler’s motion for leave to appeal and claimed appeal 
14 
of right. 
15 
 
Dehler filed in the court of appeals a timely application to reopen his 
16 
appeal under App. R. 26(B), alleging ineffective asssistance of his appellate 
17 
counsel.  The court of appeals denied the application, finding that res 
18 
 
2
judicata bars the further litigation of issues that were raised or could have 
1 
been raised on direct appeal.  The court of appeals conducted a substantive 
2 
review of Dehler’s four proposed assignments of error and found that the 
3 
claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was not demonstrated.  
4 
The appellate court found that appellate counsel need not raise frivolous 
5 
issues which are meritless.  Appellant appeals the denial to this court. 
6 
__________________ 
7 
 
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
8 
John W. Monroe, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
9 
 
Lambert Dehler, pro se. 
10 
_____________________ 
11 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the 
12 
reasons stated in its opinion. 
13 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
14 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
15 
AND COOK, JJ., CONCUR. 
16 
 
17 
 
18