Title: State v. Webb

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     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. Webb, Appellant.                                 
[Cite as State v. Webb (1995),        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 claim is res judicata because applicant had expressed                  
     discontent with his appellate counsel on direct appeal and                  
     errors alleged do not raise any genuine issues of                           
     ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.                                
     (No. 94-2471--Submitted February 21, 1995 -- Decided                        
May 24, 1995.)                                                                   
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.                   
59544.                                                                           
     According to the court of appeals' opinion, appellant,                      
Frank J. Webb, was convicted of, inter alia, aggravated robbery                  
with a firearm specification, kidnapping, attempted murder,                      
possession of dangerous ordnance, having a weapon under                          
disability, and felonious assault.  The court of appeals                         
reversed the convictions for felonious assault and the firearm                   
specification and affirmed the other convictions.  State v.                      
Webb (Jan. 2, 1992), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 59544, 59626 and 59627,                  
unreported, 1992 WL 1028.  Subsequently, appellant filed an                      
application to reopen his appeal in the court of appeals,                        
alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for                         
failure to argue that appellant was denied constitutional                        
rights when the trial court failed to instruct the jury on                       
appellant's right to a unanimous verdict and because the                         
indictment failed to specify a material element of the crime of                  
attempted murder.                                                                
     The court of appeals denied the application to reopen,                      
holding that the claims were res judicata because appellant had                  
expressed discontent with his appellate counsel on direct                        
appeal and filed pro se assignments of error.  Therefore,                        
appellant could then have filed the assignments of error he now                  
seeks to litigate in his application to reopen.  Moreover, the                   
court of appeals held that the errors alleged do not raise any                   
genuine issues of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.                   
                                                                                 
     Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting                          
Attorney, and George J. Sadd, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,                    
for appellee.                                                                    
     Frank J. Webb, pro se.                                                      
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  The judgment of the court of appeals is                        
affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion.                                  
                                     Judgment affirmed.                          
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney,                        
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.