Title: State v. Dehler

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

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. Dehler, Appellant.                               
[Cite as State v. Dehler (1994),       Ohio St. 3d      .]                       
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from                     
     judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective                       
     assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when                  
     no colorable claim for reopening appeal stated -- App.R.                    
     26(B).                                                                      
     (No.  94-1930 -- Submitted November 15, 1994 -- Decided                     
December 23, 1994.)                                                              
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, Nos.                  
65006 and 66020.                                                                 
     Appellant, Lambert Dehler, was convicted of two counts of                   
rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition.  He appealed,                    
and the court of appeals affirmed the rape convictions and                       
reversed the gross sexual imposition convictions.  State v.                      
Dehler (May 26, 1994), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 65006 and 66020,                       
unreported.  Appellant then filed an application to reopen his                   
appeal under App. R. 26 (B), alleging ineffective assistance of                  
appellate counsel.  According to the court of appeals, he                        
alleged that his appellate counsel was ineffective by (1)                        
failing to include a transcript of a pretrial hearing that                       
would have shown judicial bias and that appellant did not                        
voluntarily waive his right to a speedy trial, (2) failing to                    
file a complete record, (3) failing to raise certain                             
assignments of error, and (4) the cumulative effect of all                       
errors.  The court of appeals examined each issue and held that                  
none stated a colorable claim for reopening the appeal.  State                   
v. Dehler (Aug. 24,1994), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 65006 and 66020,                    
unreported.  Appellant appeals from that decision.                               
                                                                                 
     Lambert Dehler, pro se.                                                     
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  The decision of the court of appeals is                        
affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion.                                  
                                    Judgment affirmed.                           
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.                   
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.