[Cite as State v. Brown, 2022-Ohio-2645.] 

Atty. J. Kevin Flanagan, Belmont County Prosecutor, and Atty. Daniel P. Fry, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, 52160 National Road, St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950, for PlaintiffAppellee (No Response Filed) and 

Roy Wilton Brown, Pro Se, Lebanon Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 56, Lebanon,

Ohio 45036, Defendant-Appellant. 

 

Dated: June 30, 2022 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

BELMONT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ROY WILTON BROWN, 

Defendant-Appellee.

 

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY 

Case No. 21 BE 0012 

 

Motion for Reopening

BEFORE: 

David A. D’Apolito, Gene Donofrio, Carol Ann Robb, Judges. 

JUDGMENT: 

Denied. 
 – 2 – 

Case No. 21 BE 0012

PER CURIAM. 

{¶1} By way of background, on April 18, 2022, Appellant, Roy Wilton Brown, filed 

his first pro se App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his direct appeal in State v. Brown, 7th 

Dist. Belmont No. 21 BE 0012, 2022-Ohio-893. 

{¶2} Appellant was consecutively sentenced to seven years in prison for 

tampering with evidence, possession of heroin, and possession of cocaine following a 

guilty plea. In Appellant’s direct appeal, appellate counsel raised two assignments of 

error: (1) that the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s pre-sentence motion to withdraw 

his guilty plea following a hearing on the basis that his initial retained trial counsel’s 

assistance was ineffective; and (2) that Appellant’s second retained trial counsel (counsel 

that filed and argued his motion to withdraw guilty plea) also rendered ineffective 

assistance. Id. at ¶ 1. This court found no merit in either argument and affirmed the trial 

court’s judgment on March 21, 2022. Id. at ¶ 28. 

{¶3} Although Appellant’s April 18, 2022 first application for reopening was timely 

filed, this court found, on May 31, 2022, that he failed to meet the standard for reopening 

the appeal. State v. Brown, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 21 BE 0012, 2022-Ohio-1917, ¶ 3; 

Brown, 2022-Ohio-893; App.R. 26(B)(1) and (2)(b); State v. Romeo, 7th Dist. Mahoning 

No. 14 MA 0060, 2018-Ohio-2482, ¶ 6. 

{¶4} In his first application for reopening, Appellant took issue with his 

consecutive sentence, namely arguing that his appellate counsel was ineffective because 

his sentence should have ran concurrently. (4/18/2022 Appellant’s First Application for 

Reopening, p. 2-3). Regarding Appellant’s first application, this court held: 

Because the trial court had full discretion to impose any sentence within the 

authorized statutory ranges, and Appellant’s maximum terms are within the 

authorized statutory ranges for third and fifth-degree felonies, his 

consecutive sentence is not contrary to law. See R.C. 2929.14; [State v.]

Burkhart, [7th Dist. Belmont No. 18 BE 0020, 2019-Ohio-2711,] ¶ 16. Also, 

because the offenses were committed separately and with a separate 

animus or motivation, the trial court did not err in failing to merge the 

convictions. See, e.g., State v. Coffman, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-01-
 – 3 – 

Case No. 21 BE 0012

014, 2015-Ohio-2990, ¶ 24. Therefore, we fail to see any ineffective 

assistance of appellate counsel warranting a reopening. 

Brown, 2022-Ohio-1917, ¶ 16. 

{¶5} Thus, because Appellant failed to comply with the requirements set forth in 

App.R. 26(B) and failed to present issues that establish a colorable claim of ineffective 

assistance of appellate counsel, this court denied his first App.R. 26(B) application for 

reopening. Id. at ¶ 17-18. 

{¶6} Presently before us is Appellant’s pro se “Objection and Reconsideration” 

filed on June 10, 2022. In his current application, which this court construes as his second 

pro se App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his direct appeal in Brown, 2022-Ohio-893, 

Appellant again takes issue with his consecutive sentence, namely arguing that his 

appellate counsel was ineffective because his sentence should have ran concurrently. 

(6/10/2022 Appellant’s Second Application for Reopening, p. 1-2). Appellant concludes 

by “humbly request[ing] a reopening on the merits contained in [his] motion.” (Id. at p. 3). 

{¶7} Appellant is attempting for the second time to reopen the judgment rendered 

by this court in Brown, 2022-Ohio-893. Appellant again fails to comply with the 

requirements set forth in App.R. 26(B) and fails to present issues that establish a 

colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Furthermore, Appellant’s 

arguments were either raised or could have been raised in his prior reopening and, thus, 

are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Brick Processors, Inc. v. Culbertson, 2 Ohio 

App.3d 478, paragraph one of the syllabus, 442 N.E.2d 1313 (8th Dist.1981). Also, we 

find no case authority authorizing a party to file successive applications for reopening 

and/or reconsiderations of applications for reopening. 

{¶8} Accordingly, Appellant’s pro se “Objection and Reconsideration,” construed 

by this court as Appellant’s second pro se App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, is 

hereby denied. 
 – 4 – 

Case No. 21 BE 0012

 

JUDGE DAVID A. D’APOLITO 

JUDGE GENE DONOFRIO 

JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB 

 

NOTICE TO COUNSEL 

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.