Title: State v. Hamblin

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. Hamblin, Appellant.                              
[Cite as State v. Hamblin (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 of ineffective assistance of appellate                   
     counsel stated.                                                             
     (No. 94-1818--Submitted November 29, 1994 -- Decided                        
December 23, 1994.)                                                              
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.                   
49975.                                                                           
     Appellant, David Hamblin, was convicted of aggravated                       
murder with death penalty specifications, aggravated robbery,                    
attempted murder, and having a weapon under disability.  He was                  
sentenced to death on the aggravated murder conviction and to                    
periods of incarceration on the other convictions.  The court                    
of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. We                            
affirmed.  State v. Hamblin (1988), 37 Ohio St. 3d 153, 524                      
N.E. 2d 476.  He subsequently filed a motion for delayed                         
reconsideration in the court of appeals pursuant to State v.                     
Murnahan (1992),  63 Ohio St. 3d 60, 584 N.E. 2d 1204, alleging                  
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to                       
raise twenty-three propositions of law on direct appeal.  The                    
court of appeals examined the claims and denied the motion,                      
holding that some failed to state a colorable claim of                           
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and others had been                  
raised and were therefore res judicata.  Appellant appeals from                  
the denial of this motion, again raising the twenty-three                        
issues and also arguing that it is inappropriate to apply the                    
doctrine of res judicata in a Murnahan case.                                     
                                                                                 
     Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting                          
Attorney, and Diane Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,                   
for appellee.                                                                    
     David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and Kathleen A.                     
McGarry,                                                                         
Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant.                                  
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  The judgment 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.