[Cite as State v. Cowan, 2013-Ohio-1172.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 97877

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs.

 CRAIG A. COWAN 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-550536 

Application for Reopening 

Motion No. 462840 

BEFORE: Jones, P.J., E.A. Gallagher, J., and E.T. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 22, 2013 
FOR APPELLANT 

Craig A. Cowan 

Inmate No. 622-034 

Trumbull Correctional Institution 

5701 Burnett Road 

Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Brad S. Meyer 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

The Justice Center, 8th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.:

{¶1} On February 28, 2013, the applicant, Craig Cowan, pursuant to App.R. 26(B) 

and State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992), applied to reopen this 

court’s judgment in State v. Cowan, 8th Dist. No. 97877, 2012-Ohio-5723, in which this 

court affirmed Cowan’s convictions for felonious assault, discharging a firearm near or 

on a prohibited premises, having a weapon under disability, and improperly handling a 

firearm in a motor vehicle, but vacated his sentence in part and remanded the case for 

resentencing pursuant to R.C. 2929.14. Cowan now seeks to reopen his appeal on the 

grounds of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He asserts that his appellate 

counsel should have argued that the trial court erred in not ruling on Cowan’s motion for 

self-representation at trial. For the following reasons, this court denies the application 

sua sponte. 

{¶2} Res judicata properly bars this application. See generally State v. Perry, 10 

Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967). Res judicata prevents repeated attacks on a 

final judgment and applies to all issues that were or might have been litigated. In 

Murnahan, supra, the Supreme Court ruled that res judicata may bar a claim of 

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel unless circumstances render the application of 
the doctrine unjust. 

{¶3} In the present case, Cowan obtained leave to file his own pro se brief in 

addition to the brief of his appellate counsel. However, this court limited the pro se brief 

to ten pages. Cowan’s 21-page pro se brief argued (1) that the trial court erred when it 

did not grant a pretrial hearing for his motion for self-representation, (2) the trial court 

erred in allowing evidence of Cowan’s prior conviction to be presented to the jury, and 

(3) the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence. 

{¶4} This court declined to address the pro se brief, because Cowan had 

disregarded this court’s order limiting the size of the brief. The courts have repeatedly 

ruled that res judicata bars an application to reopen when the appellant has filed a pro se 

brief. State v. Tyler, 71 Ohio St.3d 398, 1994-Ohio-8, 643 N.E.2d 1150; State v. Boone, 

114 Ohio App.3d 275, 683 N.E.2d 67 (7th Dist. 1996); and State v. Williams, 8th Dist. 

No. 69936, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 4796, (Oct. 31, 1996), reopening disallowed, Motion 

No. 280441 (Apr. 24, 1997). This court would have addressed Cowan’s arguments, but 

he violated the court’s order. It is his own fault that his arguments were not considered. 

 As the United States Supreme Court noted in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834, 

95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), fn. 46, “a defendant who elects to represent 

himself cannot thereafter complain that the quality of his own defense amounted to a 

denial of ‘effective assistance of counsel.’” Under such circumstances, the application of 

res judicata is appropriate. 
{¶5} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.

 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., and 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR